IlitiUltItU 




LETTER 



OP 



MR. WALKER, OF MISSISSIPPI, 



RELATIVE TO THE 



ANNEXATION OF TEXAS; 



IN REPLY TO 



THE CALL OF THE PEOPLE OF CARROLL COUNTY, KENTUCKY, TO 
COMMUNICATE HIS VIEWS ON THAT SUBJECT. 



f /;-*.■> 



iyorc 




WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE GLOBE OFFICE. 
1844. 



fi 1 



LETTER. 



Washington City, Jan. 8, 1844. 
Gentlemen: Your letter, dated Ghent, Carrol 
county, Kentucky, November 25th, 1843, has been 
received. It contains the resolutions of a meeting of 
the people of that county, in favor of the annexation 
of Texas, and requestmg the candidates for the 
presidency and vire presidency of the Union to make 
"known to (you) or to the public" .their views on 
this subject. As a committee, you have tnciismitted 
me these proceedings, together with a special letter, 
addressed to me as a candidate for the "vice presi- 
dency," requesting my opinions on this question. I 
am not a candidate for the vice presidency. The 
only State in which my name has been designated, 
to any considerable extent, for this station, was my 
own; and knowing how many, with much older and 
better claims than mine, were named for this office, 
for this and other reasons, by letter dated November 
20, 1843, addressed by me to the democratic con- 
vention which assembles this day in Mississippi, my 
name is withdrawn unconditionally. 

The treaty by which Texas was surrendered to 
Spam, was always opposed by me; and in 1826, 
1834, and 1835, various addresses were made by 
me, and then published, in fovor of the reannexa- 
tion of Texas; and the same opinions have been 
often expressed by me since my election, in 1836, 
t the Senate of the Union. 
, It was a revolution in Mexico that produced the 
\-.onflict for independence in Texas. The citizens of 
Texas liad been invited there by Mexico, under the 
■olemn guaranty of the federal constitution of 1824. 
_rhi.s constitution, to which Texas so long and faith- 
■ully adhered, was prostrated by the usurper Santa 
\nna.. After a .severe struggle, the people of Mexico 
were subdued by a mercenary army; the States were 
annihilated, and a military dictator was placed at 
the head of a central despotism. In the capital of 
Mexico, and of the state of Coahuila and Texas, 
the civil authorities were suppressed by the bayonet; 
the disarming of every citizen was decreed, and the 
soldiery of the usurper proceeded to enforce this 
edict. The people of Texas resolved to resist, and 
perish upon the field of battle, rather than submit to 
tlie despotic sway of a treacherous and sanguinary 
military dictator. Short was the conflict, and glori- 
ous the issue. The American race was successful; 
tlie armies of the tyrant were overthrown and dis- 
persed, and the dictator himself was captured. He 
was released by Texas, and restored to his country, 
having first acknowledged, by a solemn treaty, the 
independence of Texas. After the fall of Santa 
Anna, and the total route and dispersion of the 
'Mexican army, and when a resubjugation had be- 
come hopeless, I introduced into the Senate the res- 
olution acknowledging the independence of Texas 
It was adopted in March, 1837, and the name of 
Texas inscribed on the roll of independent nations 
feubsequently, France, England, and Holland, have 
recognised her independence; and Texas now has all 
the rights of sovereignty over her territory and peo- 
ple, as full and perfect as any other nation of the 
world. It was to Spain, and not to Mexico that 
we transferred Texas by treaty; and it was by a 
revolution in Mexico, and the recognition of her inde- 
pendence, not by Spain, but by this republic and other 



nations, that Mexico acquired any title to Texas. 
It was by a successful revolution, and the expulsion 
of Spanish power, that Mexico, unrecognised by 
Spain, acquired all her right to this territory; and it 
is by a similar successful revolution that Texas has 
obtained the same territory. These principles have 
been recognised for many years by Mexico, and by 
this republic; and it is absurd in Mexico now to 
attempt to recall her unequivocal assent to these 
doctrines, and ask to be permitted to change the 
well-settled law of nations, and oppose the rean- 
nexation of Texas. It is an admitted principle of 
the law of nations, that every sovereignty may cede 
the whole or any part of their territory, unless re- 
strained by some constitutional interdict; and which, 
if it exist, may be removed by the same sovereign 
power which imposed the limitation. There is, how- 
ever, no such limitation in the constitution of Texas, 
which is a single central government, with the same 
authority to make the cession, as appertained to 
France or Spain, in the transfer of Louisiana of 
Florida. Nor does it change the question of power, * 
that these were distant colonies; for the sovereignty 
extends alike over every portion of the nation: and 
this principle was fully recognised, when Mr. Ad- 
ams, as President, and Mr. Clay, as Secretary of 
State, in 1825 and 1827, by instructions to our min- 
ister atMexico; and General Jackson, as President, 
and Mr. Van Buren as Secretary of State, by sub- 
sequent similar instructions in 1829, endeavored to 
procure from Mexico the cesson of Texas, then a 
contiguous and integral portion of the Mexican con- 
federacy. And if a nation may cede a portion of her 
territory, being completely sovereign overthe whole, 
she may certainly cede the whole; and, in any event 
this would be a question, not of our right to receive, 
but of the authority of the ceding nation to make the 
transfer, or simply an inquiry, whether we obtain- 
ed a good or a bad title. In this case, the title would 
be unquestionable; for Texas being independent in 
fact, and so recognised by ourselves, and the great 
powers of Europe, as completely sovereign through- 
out her territory, Mexico could make no just ob- 
jection to the transfer. 

In 1836, this question, together with that of rati- 
fying their constitution, was submitted by the con- 
stituted authorities to the people of Texas, who, 
with unparalleled unanimity, (there being but ninety- 
three dissenting votes,) decided in favor of reannexa- 
tion. 

Texas, then, has already assented to the reannex- 
ation, not merely by the act of all her authorities, 
but of her people, and made it a part and parcel of 
the organization of the government itself; and he 
who, with the knowledge of these facts, would now 
deny the power of Texas to assent to the reannexa- 
tion, must reject and discard the great fundamental 
principle of popular sovereignty. Surely, then, no 
one will contend that monarchies may transfer, and 
we receive, their colonies and subjects, without and 
against their consent; but that the entire people of 
a single republic, in whom resides the only right- 
ful sovereignty, cannot cede, nor we receive, their 
own territory, and that monarchs have more power 
than the people, and are more truly sovereign. 
Texas, then, having the undoubted right to transfer 



tlic w liole, or any part of the territory, there can be 
no difference, as a question of coiistitutional power, 
between our right to receive a part or the whole of 
the territory. 

The reannexation, then, can be accompHshed by 
any one of three modes. 1st, by treaty; 2d, by an 
act of Congress, without a treaty; and 3d, by the 
authority reserved to each State, to extend their 
boundaries, and annex additional territory with the 
sanction of Congress. 

1st. By treaty. — This right was established in 
ths cession of Louisiana and Florida, and cannot 
now be questioned, without menacing the organiza- 
tion of tlie government and integrity of the tJnion;- 
for, by virtue of this power, three States and sev- 
eral Territories now compose a part of the republic. 
In 1842, we acquired territory by treaty, and at- 
tached it to the States of New York and Vermont. 
There was there no disputed boundary, for the call 
was for a certain parallel of latitude — a mere ques- 
tion of measurement — M'hich, when made, placed 
this territory within the undoubted limits of Canada; 
in consequence of which, we had abandoned the 
fortress erecting at Rouse's Point, and the ground it 
occupied, (which was a part of this territory,) which 
we acquired by the treaty of 1842. The question 
of the power of annexation by treaty is settled, and 
incorporated into the very existence of the govern- 
ment and of the Union. 

2d. The object may be accomplished by act of 
Congress, without a treaty. — The language of the 
constitution is: "New States may be admitted by 
the Congress into this Union; but no new State 
shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of 
any other State; nor any State be formed by the 
junction of two or more States, or parts of States, 
without the consent of the legislatures of the States 
concerned, as well as of the Congress." The grant 
is unlimited, except that the boundary of an exist- 
ing State cannot be disturbed by Congress without 
the assent of the State legislatures "New States 
may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." 
This is the broad language of the constitution; and, 
to confine it to territory then acquired, is to interpo- 
late most important words into that instrument. 
Nor could it have been the intention of the framers 
of the constitution to prevent the acquisition of new 
territory. Louisiana was not then a part of the 
Union, but it was a most important part of the val- 
ley of the Mississippi, containmg New Orleans, 
and the whole of the western, and the most essen- 
tial part of the eastern portion of that territory, 
with both banks of its great river for many lum- 
dred miles above its mouth, and the only outlet of 
ths products of the mighty valley starting at the 
Youghiogany in Maryland, and the Alleghany in 
New York, uniting at Pittsburg, where they form 
the Ohio, to the outlet of all into the Gulf. If we 
look at the condition of many of the States when 
the constitution was framed, we will find it could 
never have been adopted had it forbidden the ac- 
qliLsition of the only outlet of all the products of 
the West. The waters of western Maryland, and 
of western New York, commingle with those of the 
Ohio and Mississippi. There stood Pittsburg at the 
head of the Ohio; and one-third of Pennsylvania is 
intersected by streams which water a part of the 
great valley. Virginia then included Kentucky; 
three-fourths of her territory was within the great 
valley, and the Ohio and Mississippi itself were its 
boundary for more than a thousand miles. North 



' Carolina then included Tennessee, and was bounded 
for hundreds of miles by the river Mississippi; and 
Georgia then embraced Alabama and Mississippi, 
and was not only bounded for several hundred 
miles by the great river, but advanced to within a 
few miles of the city of New Orleans. Is it possi- 
ble that all these States, in forming the constitution, 
could have intended to prohibit forever the acquisi- 
tion of the mouth of the Mississippi, then in the 
hands of a hostile and despotic foreign power? The 
constitution contains no such suicidal provision; and 
all the liistorical facts, both before and after its 
adoption, are against any such anti-American re- 
striction. As to a treaty, it is only necessary as in- 
dicating flie assent of the ceding nation; and if that 
has been given already, as in the case of Texas, 
without a treaty, our acceptance may be made by 
Congress. Suppose the constitution of Texas for- 
bid the cession, except by Congress: when their 
Congress passed the assenting law, could not we 
accept, by act of Congress.' Or suppose Texas, or 
any other contiguous territory, was vacant and un- 
claimed by any power: could we not annex it by 
act of Congress? One of the grounds assumed in 
Congress, and by our government, in defence of our 
title to Oregon, is its alleged discovery and occu- 
pancy by us, (long before the treaty with France,) 
being one of the acknowledged modes by which 
nations acquire territory; but if we can only ac- 
quire territory by treaty, then tliis ground, upon 
which we claim title to Oregon, must be abandoned. 
It would be strange, indeed, if the treaty-making 
power (which, mider our constitution, is purely an 
executive power) could annex territory, and yet 
that the Executive, and both Houses of Congress 
combined, could not. Then, if France or S]iain had 
forever refused to cede to us Louisiana or New Or- 
leans, could we never — no, not even by conquest in 
war — have occupied and annexed them by act of 
Congress? Congress, then, having the undoubted 
power to annex territory, and admit new States, 
and Texas having assented in advance, may be 
either admitted at once, as a Territory, or a State, 
or States, or Congress may provide for the prospec- 
tive admission of one or more States from Texas, 
as has often heretofore been done as to other new 
States, the whole question of annexation not being, 
one whether this government has the power, but only 
how it must be exercised; and whether only by one 
of the branches of this government, or by all com- 
bined. And if the power vested in Congress by 
the constitution to admit new States, does not of 
itself embrace territory then constituting a part of 
the Union, as well as all future acquisitions, there is 
no power to admit new States, except out of terri- 
tory which was a part of the Union when the con- 
stitution was formed; but as this interpretation can- 
not prevail without expelling three States from the 
Union, and forbidding the admission of Iowa, it 
must be conceded that this power of Congress to ad- 
mit new States does extend to future acquisitions. 
This being the case, what can be more clear than 
that Congress may admit a State or States out of 
Texas, if her assent is given, as we perceive it haa 
been, in a form as obligatory as a treaty? In truth, 
the power to ajinex territory by treaty does not so 
much exist as a mere implication from the treaty- 
making power, as from the grant to Congress to 
admit new States out of any territory whatever, 
although not then a part of the Union; and the right 
to annex by treaty results mainly as a means of 
obtaining, when necessary, the assent of another 



government, especially when that assent can be ob- ' 
tained in no other manner. 

Something like this was done by the annexation, 
by Congress, of the Florida parishes to the State of 
Louisiana. They had been claimed, and remained 
for many years after the cession of Louisiana, in 
the exclusive occupancy of Spain, when the Ameri- 
can settlers revolted, assembled their convention, de- 
clared their independence, and, by a successful revo- 
lution, wrested this territory from the dominion of 
Spain, and Congress recognised the acts, and as- 
sumed and paid the debts of the insurgent conven- 
tion; and the legislature of Louisiana, after the adop- 
tion of her constitution, and admission into the 
Union, without this territory, subsequently, by mere 
legislative enactment, with the consent of Congress, 
fmnexed it to the State of Louisiana. 

3d. The annexation may be accomplished by one 
of the States of the Union, with the sanction of Con- 
gress. — That each of the States possessed the power 
to extend her boundaries before the adoption of the 
constitution, will not be denied; and that the power 
still exists, is certain, unless it is abandoned by the 
State in forming the government of the Union. 
Now, there is no such abandonment, unless it is 
found in the following clause of the constitution: 
"No State shall, without the consent of Congress, 
enter into any agreement or compact with another 
State, or with a foreign power." Each State, then, 
may, with the consent of Congress, "enter into any 
agreement or compact with another State, or with a 
foreign poicer.''^ Texas, if not ours, is a foreign 
power; and if she, by law, assents to the reannexa- 
tion, in whole or in part, to Louisiana, or to Arkan- 
sas, and those States, by law, agree to the annexa- 
tion, it is "an agreement or compact" between a for- 
eign power and a State of the Union, and is clearly 
lawful, with "the consent of Congress." It would 
not be a treaty, which is the exercise of an executive 
power, but a compact by law, and precisely similar 
to the numerous compacts, so called, by which, by 
acts of Congress and of a State legislature, so many 
agreements, especially with the new States, have 
been made by mere legislative enactments. Nor 
need the assent of Congress be given in advance; it 
was not so given on the admission of Tennessee, 
Arkansas, and Michigan; but if given subsequently, 
it would ratify the previous extension of their 
boundaries by Louisiana or Arkansas. There 
are, then, these three modes, by any one of which 
Texa.y may be reannexed to the American Union. 
1st. By treaty; 2d. By act of Congress, without a 
treaty; and, 3d. By the act of a State, with the sanc- 
tion of Congress. But, if it be otherwise, and the 
constitution only applies to territories then attached 
to the Union, and delegates no power for the acqui- 
sition of any other territory, nor prohibits the exer- 
cise of the pre-existing power of each State to ex- 
tend her boundaries, then there would remain in 
each State the reserved right of extension, beyond 
the control of Congress. I have not asserted the 
existence of such a right in a State; but, if the 
clauses quoted do not confer the authority on Con- 
gress, and the reannexation is refused on that 
ground, then the annexing power, as a right to en- 
large their boundaries, would result to any one of 
the States, and, with the consent of Texas, could 
be exercised. Perceiving, then, what power results 
to the States, from the denial of the power of an- 
nexation by Congress, let us agitate no such ques- 
tion in advance of a denial of its own authority by 
Congress, but discuss the question on its merits alone. 



Is it expedient to reannex Texas to the Amer- 
ican Union.' This is the greatest question, since 
the adoption of the constitution, ever present- 
ed for the decision of the American people. Texas 
was once our own; and, although surrendered by 
treaty to Spain, the surrender was long resisted 
by the American government, and was conceded to 
be a great sacrifice. This being the case, is it not 
clear that, when the territory, which wc have most 
reluctantly surrendered, can be reacquired, that ob- 
ject should be accomplished.' Under such circum- 
stances, to refuse the reannexation is to deny the 
wisdom of the original purchase, and to reflect upon 
the judgment of those who maintained, even at the 
period of surrender, that it was a great sacrifice of 
national interests. 

Texas, as Mr. Jefferson declared, was as clearly 
embraced in the purchase by us of Louisiana as 
New Orleans itself; and that it was a pai-t of that 
region, is demonstrated by the discovery, by the 
great Lasalle, of the source and mouth of the Mis- 
sissippi, and his occupancy for France west of the 
Colorado. Our right to Texas, as a part of Louisi- 
ana, was asserted and demonstrated by Presi- 
dents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and John 
duincy Adams. No one of our Presidents has 
ever doubted our title; and Mr. Clay has ever main- 
tained it as cleai- and unquestionable. Louisiana 
was acquired by a treaty with France, in 1803, by 
Mr. Jefferson; and in the letter of Mr. Madison, 
the Secretary of State, dated March 31, 1804, he 
says, expresing his own views and those of Mr. 
Jefferson, that Louisiana "extended westwardly to 
the Rio Bravo, otherwise called Rio del Norte. 
Orders were accordingly obtained from the Spanish 
authorities for the delivery of all the posts on the 
west side of the Mississippi." And in his letter of 
the 31st January, 1804, Mr. Madison declares that 
Mr. Laussat, the French commissioner who deliver- 
ed the possession of Louisiana to lis, announced the 
"Del Norte as its true boundary." Here, then, in 
the delivery of the possession of Louisiana by 
Spain to France, and France to us, Texas is in- 
cluded. In the letter of Mr. Madison of the 8th 
July, 1804, he declares the opposition of Mr Jeffer- 
son' to the ''relinquishment of any territory whatever 
eastward of the Rio Bravo." In the letter of James 
Monroe of the 8th November, 1803, he incloses 
documents which he says "prove incontestabhf that 
the boundary of Louisiana is "the Rio Bravo to 
the west;" and Mr. Pinckney unites with him in a 
similar declaration. In a subsequent letter— not to 
a foreign government, but to Mr. Madison — of the 
20th April, 1805, they assert our title as unquestiona- 
ble. In Mr. Monroe's letters, as Secretary of State, 
dated January 19, 1816, and June 10, 1816, he says 
none could question "our title to Texas;" and he ex- 
presses his concurrence in opinion with Jefferson 
and Madison, "that our title to the Del Norte was 
as clear as to the island of New Orleans." In his 
letter, as Secretary of State, to JDon Onis, of the 
12th March, 1818, John Uuincy Adams says: "The 
claim of France always did extend westward to the 
Rio Bravo;" "she always claimed the territory 
which you call Texas as being within the limits, 
and forming a part, of Louisiana." After demon- 
strating our title to Texas in this letter, Mr. Adams 
says: "Well might Messrs. Pinckney and Monroe 
write to M. Cevallos, in 180.5, that the claim of the 
United States to the boundary of the Rio Bravo 
was as clear as their right to the' island of New Or- 
leans." Again, in his letter^ of the 31.st October, 



1818, Mr. Adams says our title to Texas is "estab- 
lished beyond the power of further controversy." 

Here, then, by the discovery and occupation of 
Texas, as a part of Louisiana, by Lasalle, for 
France, in 1G85; by tlie delivery of possession to us, 
in 1803, by Spain and France; by the action of our 
government, from the date of the treaty of acquisi- 
tion to the date of the treaty of surrender, (avowed- 
ly so on its face;) by the opinion of all our Presi- 
dents and ministers coimected in any way with the 
acquisition, our title to Texas was undoubted. It 
was surrendered to Spain by the treaty of 1819; 
but Mr. Clay maintained, in his speech of the 3d 
April, 1820, that territory could not be alienated mere- 
ly by a treaty; and consequently that, notwith- 
standing the treaty, Texas was still o^ir ovm. In the 
cession of a portion of Maine, it was asserted, in 
legislative resolutions, by Massachusetts and Maine, 
and conceded by this government, that no portion 
of Maine could be ceded by treaty without the con- 
sent of Maine. Did Texas assent to this treaty, 
or can we cede part of a territory, but not of a State? 
These are grave questions; they raise the point 
whether Texas is not now a part of our territory, 
and whether her people may not now rightfully claim 
tlie protection of our government and laws. Rec- 
ollect this was not a question of settlement, under 
the powers of this government, of a disputed bound- 
ary. The treaty declares, as respects Texas, that 
we "c£(Ze to his Catholic majesty.'''' Commenting on 
this in his speech before referred to, Mr. Clay says 
it was not a question of the power in case of dispute 
"of fixing a boundary previously existing." "It 
was, on the contrary, the case of an avowed cession 
of territory from the United States to Spain." Al- 
though, then, the government may be competent to 
fix a disputed boundary, by ascertaining as near as 
practicable where it is ; "although, also, a State, with 
the consent of this government, as in the case of 
Maine, may cede a portion of her territory, — yet it 
by no means follov.'s that this government, by treaty, 
could cede a Territory of the ^Union. Could we by 
treaty cede Florida to Spain, especially without con- 
sulting the people of Florida? and, if not, the treaty 
by which Texas was surrendered was, as Mr. Clay 
contended, inoperative. 

By the treaty of 1803, by which, we have seen, 
Texas was acquired by us from France, we pledged 
our faith to France, and to the people of Texas, 
never to surrender that territory. The 3d article of 
that treaty declares: "the inhabitants of the ceded 
territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the 
United States, and udmitled as soon as possible, ac- 
cording to the principles of the federal constitution, 
to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and 
immunities of cifizens of the United States; and in the 
mean time they shall be protected in the free enjoy- 
ment of their liberty, property, and the religion 
which they profess." Such was our pledge to 
France and to the people of Texas, by the treaty of 
purchase; and itour subsequent treaty of cession to 
Spain was not unconstitutional and invalid, it was 
a^gross infraction of a previous treaty, and of one 
of the fundamental conditions under which Texas 
was acquired. 

Here, then, are many grave questions of constitu- 
tional power. Could the solemn guaranty to 
France, and to the people of Texas, be rescinded by 
a treaty with Spain? Can this government, by its 
own mere power, surrender any portion of its terri- 
tory? Can it cut off a territory without the consent 
of Us people, and surrender them and the territory to 



a foreign power? Can it expatriate and expel from 
the Union its o\vn citizens, who occupy that terri- 
tory, and change an American citizen into a citizen 
of Spain or Mexico? These are momentous ques- 
tions, which it is not necessary now to determine, 
and in regard to which I advance at this time no 
opinion. Certain, however, it is, that, with the con- 
sent of the people of Texas, Congress can carry out 
the solemn pledges of the treaty of 1803, and admit 
one or more States from Texas into the Union. 

The question as to Texas is, in any aspect, a ques- 
tion of the re-establishment of our ancient bounda- 
ries, and the repossession of a territory most reluct- 
antly surrended. The surrender of territory, even 
if constitutional, is almost universally inexpedient and 
unwise, and, in any event, when circumstances may 
seem to demand such a surrender, the territory thus 
abandoned should always be reacquired whenever it 
may be done with justice and propriety. Inde- 
pendent of these views, we have the recorded opin- 
ion of John Q,uincy Adams as President, and Henry 
Clay as Secretary of State, and also of Gen. Andrew 
Jackson as President, and Martin Van Buren as 
Secretary of State, that Texas ought to be reannex- 
ed to the Union. On the 26th of March, 1825, Mr. 
Clay, in conformity with his own views, and the 
express d'lrections of Mr. Mams as President, directed 
a letter to Mr. Poinsett, our Minister at Mexico, in- 
structing him to endeavor to procure from Mexico 
a transfer to us of Texas to the Del Norte. In this 
letter Mr. Clay says, "the President wishes you to 
effect that object." Mr. Clay adds: "The line of the 
Sabine approaches our great western mart nearer 
than could be v/ished. Perhaps the Mexican gov- 
ernment may not be unwilling to establish that of 
the Rio Brassos de Dios, or the Rio Colorado, or 
the Snow Mountains, or the Rio del Norte, in lieu of 
it." Mr. Clay urges, also, the importance of 
having entirely within our limits "the Red riv^er and 
Arkansas, antl their respective tributary streams." 

On the 15th of March, 1827, Mr. Clay again re- 
newed the effort to procure the cession of Texas. 
Ill his letter of instruction, of that date, to our min- 
ister at Mexico, he says: "The Presirfejii has thought 
the present might be an auspicious period for urging 
a negotiation at Mexico, to settle the boundary of 
the two republics." "If we could obtain such a 
boundary as we desire, the government of the United 
States might be disposed to pay a reasonable pecu- 
niary compensation. The boundary we prefer is 
that which, beginning at the mouth of the Rio del 
Norte in the sea, shall ascend that river to the mouth 
of the Rio Puereo, thence ascending this river to its 
source, and from its source by a line due north to 
strike the Arkansas; thence following the southern 
bank of the Arkansas to its source, in latitude 42° 
north; and thence by that parallel of latitude to the 
South sea." And he adds, the treaty may provide 
"for the incorporation of the inhabitants into tHe 
Union." 

Mr. Van Buren, in his letter, as Secretary of State, 
to our minister at Mexico, dated August 95, 1829, 
says: "It is the wish of the President that you 
should, without delay, open a negotiation with the 
Mexican government for the purchase of so much 
of the province of Texas as is hereinafter described. "- 
"He is induced, by a deep conviction of the ?Ta/ neces- 
sity of the proposed acquisition, not only as a guard 
for our western frontier, and the protection of J^ew 
Orleans, but also to secure forever to the inhabitants 
of the valley of the Mississippi the undisputed and 
undisturbed possession of the navigation of that 



river." "The territory, of which a cession is de- 
sired by the United States, is all that part of the 
province of Texas which lies east of a line begin- 
ning at the Gulf of Mexico, in the centre of the 
desert, or grand prairie, which lies west of the Rio 
Nueces." And Mr. Van Buren adds, the treaty 
inay provide "for the incorporation of the inhabit- 
ants into the Union." And he then enters into a 
long and powerful argument of his own, in favor of 
the reacquisition of Texas. 

On the 20th of March, 1833, General Jackson, 
through Mr. Livingston as Secretary of State, re- 
news to our minister at Mexico the former "instruc- 
tions on the subject of the proposed cession." On 
the 2d of July, 1835, General Jackson, through Mr. 
Forsyth as Secretary of State, renews the instruc- 
tions to obtain the cession of Texas, and expresses 
"an anxious desire to secure the very desirable alter- 
ation in our boundary with Mexico." On the 6th 
of August, 1835, General Jackson, through Mr. 
Forsyth as Secretary of State, directs our minister 
at Mexico to endeavor to procure for us, from that 
government, the following boundary, "beginning at 
the Gulf of Mexico, proceeding along the eastern 
bank of the river Rio Bravo del Norte, to the 37th 
parallel of latitude, and thence along that parallel to 
the Pacific." This noble and glorious proposition 
of General Jackson would have secured to us, not 
only the whole of Texas, but also the largest and 
most valuable portion of upper California, together 
with the bay and liarbor of San Francisco, the best 
on the western coast of America, and equal to any 
in the world. If, then, it was deemed, as it is clear- 
ly proved, most desirable to obtain the reannexation 
of Texas, down to a period as late as August, 1835, 
is it less important at this period? 

We find the administration of Messrs. Adams and 
Clay in 1825 and 1827, and that of Jackson and 
Van Buren, in 1829, and subsequently in 1833 and 
1835, making strenuous efforts to procure the rean- 
nexation of Texas, by a purchase from Mexico, at 
tl\c expense of millions of dollars. Let us observe 
also the dates of these efforts: That of the first, by 
Messrs. Adams and Clay, in March, 1825, was 
•within three years only after the recognition of the 
independence of Mexico by this country, and prior 
to its full recognition by other powers; and it was 
within less than five years subsequent to the final 
ratification of the treaty by which we surrendered 
Texas, not to Mexico, but to Spain. Now, as Spain 
had not then recognised the independence of Mexico, 
and the war was still waging between those nations, 
the only title which Mexico had to Texas, -was by 
a successful revolution, and is precisely the same 
title, and depending on the same principles, as that 
now possessed by Texas. The same remarks apply 
to the subsequent eflorts of Messrs. Adams and 
Clay in 1827, and of Jackson and Van Buren in 
1829, to acquire Texas by purchase from Mexico. 
And even at the latest period, no more time had 
elapsed between the date of the recognition of the 
independence of Mexico, and the proposed purchase 
from her, than the time (now about seven years) 
since our recognition of the independence of Texas. 
Throughout the period of all the.se proposed treaties, 
the war was waging between Mexico and Spain. 
The brave Porter, our own gallant commodore, 
commanded the Mexican navy, aided by many 
Anierican officers and crews. In the eai-lierpart, also, 
of the conflict on the land, the gallant Perry, and the 
brave Magee, an American officer, with a combined 
American and Mexican army, had defeated the 



royal forces of Spain in many a glorious conflict. 
Throughout this whole period, Mexico was solicit-' 
tjig-and obtaining the aid of our countrymen, on the 
ocean and on the land; and it is more than doubtful 
whether, in the absence of that assistance, Mexico 
would yet have achieved her independence. On the 
27th July 1829, Barradas, with a Spanish army of 
four thousand men, captured the Mexican city of 
Tampico, which he held until the 10th September of 
the same year. Yet, on the 25th August, 1829, 
whilst the fate of this expedition was yet undeter- 
mined, the administration of Jackson and Van 
Buren, as we have seen, proposed the purchase of 
Texas from Mexico, if, then, there be any force in 
the objections, that Texas was aided in her conflict by 
American citizens, that the war is still waging, (which 
it is not,) or that the independence of Texas is still 
unrecognised by Mexico, or thata treaty with Mexico 
(as we had with Spain) had been ratified,~all these rea- 
sons apply with far greater force against the proposed 
purchase of Texas from Mexico in 1825, 1827, and 
1829, when Mexico was yet unrecognised by Spain; 
when our treaty, surrendering Texas to Spain, was 
unrescinded, except by the revolution in Mexico; 
and when our citizens were still aiding, as they al- 
ways had done, the people of Mexico in their strug- 
gle for independence. It is true, that, in 1837, with- 
in a few weeks or months succeeding our recognition 
of the independence of Texas, and before her recog- 
niton by any foreign powers, it might have subject- 
ed us to unjust imputations; and therefore might 
have been deemed inexpedient, at such a time, and 
under such circumstances, to reannex Texas by a 
treaty to this Union. But now, when seven years 
have elapsed since our recognition of the independ- 
ence of Texas; and she has been recognized for many 
years as an independent power by the great nations 
of Europe; and her sovereignty fully established, and 
fully acknowledged, there can be no objection to 
such a treaty at this period. 

The reasons assigned in 1825, 1827, 1829, 1833 
and 1835, for the reannexation of Texas, apply now 
with full force. These reasons were, that the Sabine, 
as a boundary, was too near New Orleans; that the 
defence of that city was rendered insecure; and that 
the Arkansas and Red river, and all their tributaries, 
ought to be in our own exchisive possession. The 
present boundary is the worst which could be de- 
vised. It is a succession of steps and curves, carv- 
ing out the great valley of the West into a shape that 
is absolutely hideous. It surrenders the Red river, 
and Arkansas, and their numerous tributaries, for 
thousands of miles, to a foreign power. It brings that 
power u])on the Gulf, within a day's sail of the 
mouth of the Mississippi, and in the interior, by the 
curve of the Sabine, withm about one hundred miles 
of the Mississippi. It places that power, for many 
hundred miles, on the banks of the Red river, in im- 
mediate contact with sixty thousand Indian warriors 
of our own, and with very many thousand of the 
fiercest savage tribes in Texas, there to be armed and 
equipped for the work of death and desolation. It en- 
ables a foreign power, with such aids, to descend the 
Red river, to the junction of the Mississippi, there to 
cut oft' all communication from above or below, to ar- 
rest at that point all boats which were descending with 
their troops and munitions of war for the defence of 
New Orleans, and fall down suddenly on that city, 
thus isolated from the rest of the Union, and sub- 
jected to certain ruin. 

From the mouth of the Mississippi to the Sabine 
there is not a single harbor where an American ves- 



8 



sel of war could find shelter; but westward of the 
jmouth of the Sabine, in Texas, are several deep 
bays and harbors; and Galveston, one of these, has 
a depth of water equal to that at the mouth of the 
Mississippi. Looking into the interior, along this 
extraordinary boundary, we find a foreign power 
stretching for many hundred miles along the Sabine 
to the Red river; thence west several hundred miles 
along that river to the western boundary of our In- 
dian territories; thence north to the Arkansas, and 
up that stream to the southern boundary of the ter- 
ritory of Oregon, and at a point which, according to 
the recent most able survey of Lieutenant Fremont, 
is within twenty miles of the pass of the Rocky 
mountains, which secures the entrance to Oregon. 
We thus place a foreign power there, to move east- 
ward or westward, upon the valley of the Columbia 
or Mississippi. We place this power north of St. 
Louis, north of a portion of Iowa, and south of New 
Orleans, and along this line for severed thousand 
miles in our rear. 

Such is the boundary at present given to the val- 
ley of the West; such the imminent dangers to 
■which it is subjected of Indian mas.sacre; such the 
dismemberment of the great valley, and of many 
of the noblest streams and tributaries of the Missis- 
sippi; such the surrender of so many hundred miles 
of our coast, with so many bays and harbors; such 
the hazard to which New Orleans is subjected, and 
the outlet of all our commerce to the gulf. Such is 
our present boundary; and it can be exchanged for 
one that will give us perfect security, that will place 
our own people and our own settlements in rear of 
the Indian tribes, and that will cut them off from 
foreign influence; that will restore t ) us the uninter- 
rupted navigation of the Red river and Arkansas, 
and of all their tributaries; that will place us at the 
north, upon a point to command the pass of Oregon, 
and, on the south, to secure New Orleans, and ren- 
der certain the command of the Gulf of Mexico. In 
pursuing our ancient and rightful boundary, before 
we surrendered Texas, along the Del Norte, we 
are brought, by a western curve of that o;reat river, 
to a point within four hundred miles of the Pacific 
ocean, and where the waters of the Del Norte al- 
most commingle with those that flow into the West- 
ern ocean. Up to this point on the Del Norte it is 
navigable for steamboats; and from that point to the 
Pacific is a good route for caravans, and where, it 
is believed, the Pacific may be united with the Del 
Norte and the Gulf by a railroad, not longer than 
that which now unites Buffalo and Boston; and 
where, even now, without such a road, we could 
command the trade of all the northern States of 
Mexico, and of a very large portion of the western 
coast of America. 

The importance of Texas is thus described by 
Mr. Clay, in his speech of the 3d of April, 1820: 

"All the accounts concurred in representing Texas 
to be extremely valuable. Its superficial extent 
was three or four times greater than ihat of Florida. 
The climate was delicious; the soil fertile; the mar- 
gins of the rivers abounding in live-oak; and the 
country admitting of easy settlement. It possessed, 
moreover, if he were not misinformed, one of the 
finest ports in the Gulf of Mexico. The produc- 
tions of which it was capable, were suited to our 
wants. The unfortunate captive of St. Helena 
wished for ships, commerce, and colonies. We 
have them all, if we do not wantonly throw them 
away. The colonies of other countries are sepaj-a- 
ted from them by vast seas, requiring great expense ! 



to protect them, and are held subject to a constant 
risk of their being torn from their grasp. Our colo- 
nies, on the contrary, are united to, and form a part, 
of our continent; and the same Mississippi, from 
whose rich deposite the best of them (Louisicina) 
has been formed, will transport on her bosom the 
brave, the patriotic men from her tributary streams, 
to defend and preserve the next most valuable — the 
province of Texas." "He was not disposed to dis- 
parage Florida; but its intrinsic value was incom- 
parably less than that of Texas." 

In the letter of instructions from Mr. Madison, aa 
Secretary of State, of the 29th July, 1803, he says, 
"the acquisition of the Floridas is still to be pursued." 
He adds, the exchange of any part of western Lou- 
isiana, which Spain may propose for "the cession ot 
the Floridas," "is inadmissible." "In intrinsic value 
there is no equality." "We are the less disposed also 
to make sacrifices to obtain the Floridas; because their 
position and the manifest course of events guaranty 
an early and reasonable acquisition of them.'''' In Mr^ 
Madison's letter, also, as Secretary of State, of the 
8th July, 1804, he announces the opposition of Mr. 
Jefferson "to a perpetual relinquishment of any ter- 
ritory whatever eastward of the Rio Bravo." In the 
message of President Houston of the 5th May, 
1837, ihe says that Texas contains "four-fifths of aJi 
the live oak now in the world." Cotton will be itg 
great staple, and some sugar and molasses will be 
produced. The grape, the olive, and indigo, arid 
cocoa, and nearly all the fruits of the tropics will be 
grown there also. In Texas are valuable mines of 
gold and silver; the siver mine on the San Saba 
having been examined and found to be among the 
richest in the world. 

In the recent debate in the British Parliament, 
Lord Brougham said: "The importance of Texas 
could not be overrated. It was a country of the 
greatest capabilities, and was in extent full as large 
as France. It possessed a sod of the finest and most 
fertile character, and it was capable of producing aiJ. 
tropical produce; and its climate was of a most 
healthy character. It had access to the gulf, to the 
river Mississippi, with which it communicated by 
means of the Red river." The possession of Texas 
would ensure to us the trade of Santa Fe and 
all the northern States of Mexico. Above all, Texas* 
is a large and indispensable portion of the valley of 
the West. That valley once was all our own; but it- 
has been dismembered by a treaty formed when the 
West held neither of the high executive stations of 
the government, and was wholly unrepresented in 
the cabinet at Washington. The Red river and 
Arkansas, divided and mutilated, now flow, with, 
their numerous tributaries, for many thousand miles, 
through the territory of a foreign power; and the 
West has been forced back along the gulf, from the 
Del Norte to the Sabine. If, then, it be true that 
the sacrifice of Texas was made with painful reluc- 
tance, all those who united in the surrender will re- 
joice at .the reacquisition. 

This is no question of the purchase of new terri- 
tory, but of the re-annexation of that which once 
was all our own. It is not a question of the exten- 
sion of our limits, but of the restoration of former 
boundaries. It proposes no new addition to the valley 
of the Mississippi; but of its reunion, and all its wa- 
ters, once more, under our dominion. If the Creator 
had separated Texas from the Union by mountain 
barriers, the Alps or the Andes, these might be plau- 
sible objections; but he lias planed down the whole 
valley, including Texas, and united every atom of 



the soil and every drop of the waters of the mighty 
whole. He has linked their rivers with the great 
Mississippi, and marked and united the whole for 
the dommion of one government and the residence 
of one people; and it is impious in man to attempt 
to dissolve this great and glorious Union. Texas is 
a part of Kentucky, a portion of the same great val- 
ley. It is a part of New York and Pennsylvania, 
a part of Maryland and Virginia, and Ohio, and of 
all the western States, whilst the Tennessee unites 
with it the waters of Georgia, Alabama, and Caro- 
lina. The Alleghany, commencing its course in 
New York, and with the Youghiogany, from Mary- 
land, and Monongahela, from Virginia, merging with 
the beautiful Ohio at the metropolis of western Penn- 
sylvania, embrace the streams of Texas at the 
mouths of the Arkansas and Red river, wlience theij 
waters flow m kindred union to the gulf And here 
let me say, that New York ought to reclaim for the 
Alleghany its true original name, the Ohio, of which 
it is a part, and so marked and called by that name 
in the British maps, prior to 1776, one of which is 
in the possession of the distinguished representative 
from the Pittsburg district of Pennsylvania. The 
words "Ohio" and "Alleghany," in two different In- 
dian dialects, mean clear, as designating truly, in both 
cases, the character of the water of both streams; and 
hence it is that New York is upon the Ohio, and 
truly stands at the head of the valley of the West. 
The treaty which struck Texas from the Union, in- 
flicted a blow upon this mighty valley. And who 
will say that the West shall remain dismembered 
and mutilated, and that the ancient boundaries of the 
republic shall never be restored? Who will desire 
to check the young eagle of America, now refixing 
her gaze upon our former limits, and repluming her 
pinions for her returning fligliL' What American 
will say, that the flag of the Union shall never wave 
again throughout that mighty territory; and that 
what Jefferson acquired, and Madison refused to sur- 
render, shall never be restored? Who will oppose 
the re-establishmejit our glorious constitution, over 
the whole of the mighty valley which once was 
shielded by its benignant sway? Who will wish 
again to curtail the limits of this great republican 
empire, and again to dismember the glorious valley 
of the West? Who will refuse to replant the banner 
of the republic, upon our former boundary, or re- 
surrender the Arkansas and Red river, and retrans- 
fer the coast of the gulf? Who will refuse to heal 
the bleeding wounds of the mutilated West, and re- 
unite the veins and arteries, dissevered by the dis- 
membering cession of Texas to Spain? To refuse 
to accept the reannexation, is to resurrender the 
Territory of Texas, and redismember the valley of 
tlie West. Nay, more: under existing circum- 
stances, it is to lower the flag of the Union before 
the red cross of St. George, and to surrender the 
Florida pass, the mouth of the Mississippi, the com- 
mand of the Mexican gulf, and finally Texas itself, 
into the hands of England. 

As a question of money, no State is much more 
deeply interested in the reannexation of Texas than 
your own great Commonwealth of Kentucky. There, 
if Texas becomes part of the Union, will be a great 
and growing market for her beef and pork, her lard 
and butter, her flour and corn; and there, within a 
Very short period, would be found a ready sale for 
more than a million dollars in value, of her bale- 
rope and hemp and cotton-bagging. Nor can it be 
that Kentucky would desire, by the refusal of re- 
annexation, to mutilate and dismember the valley of 



which she is a part; or that Kentucky would cur- 
tail the limits of the repubhc, or diminish its pow- 
er and strength and glory. It cannot be that Ken- 
tucky will wish to see any flag except our own up- 
on the banks of the Sabine and Arkansas and R-ed 
river, and within a day's sail of the mouth of the 
Mississippi, and the outlet of all her own commerce 
in the Gulf Many of her own people are within 
the limits of Texas, and its battle-fields are watered 
with the blood of many of her sons. It was her 
own intrepid Milam, who headed the brave three 
hundred who, armed with rifles only, captured the 
fortress of the Alamo, defended by heavy artillery, 
and thirteen hundred of the picked troops of Mexico, 
under one of their best commanders. And will 
Kentucky refuse to re-embrace so many of her own 
people? nor permit them, without leavmg Texas, to 
return to the American Union? And if war should 
ever again revisit our country, Kentucky knows that 
the steady aim of the western riflemen, and the 
brave hearts and stout hands, within the limits of 
Texas, are, in the hour of danger, among the surest 
defenders of the country, and especially of the valley 
of the West. Tlie question of reannexation, and of 
the restoration of ancient boundaries, is a much 
stronger case than that of the purchase of^new terri- 
tory. It is a stronger case also than the acquisition 
of Louisiana or Florida; not only upon the ground 
that these were both an acquisition of new territory, 
but that they embraced a foreign people, dissimilar 
to our own, in languttge, laws, and institutions; 
and transferred without tlieir knowledge or consent, 
by the act of a European king. More especially, 
in a case like this, where the people of Texas occu- 
py a region which was once exclusively our own; 
and this people, in whom we acknowledge to reside 
the only sovereignty over the whole and every por- 
tion of Texas, desire the reannexation — that we can- 
not re-establish our former boundaries, and restore 
to us the whole or any part of the territory which 
was once our own, is a proposition, the bare state- 
ment of which is its best refutation. 

Let us examine, now, some of the objections 
urged against the reannexation of Texas. And 
here, it is remarkable that the objections to the pur- 
chase of Louisiana are the same now made in the 
case of Texas; yet all now acknowledge the wisdom 
of that great measure; and to have ever opposed it, 
is now regarded as alike unpatriotic and unwise. 
And so will it be in the case of Texas. The meas- 
ure will justify itself by its results; and its oppo- 
nents will stand in the same position now occupied 
by those who oljjected to tlie purchase of Louisi- 
ana. The objections, we have said, were the same, 
and we will examine them separately. 1st. The 
extension of territory; and 2d, the question of 
slavery. 

As to the extension of territory, it applied with 
much greater force to the purchase of Louisiana. 
That purchase annexed to the Union a territory dou- 
ble the size of that already embraced within its lim- 
its; whilst the reannexation of Texas, according to 
the largest estimates, will add but one-seventh to the 
extent of our territory. The highest estimate of the 
area of Texas is but .318,000 square miles, whilst 
that of the rest of the Union is 2,000,000 square 
miles. Now, the British territory, on our own con- 
tinent of Nortii America, exclusive of the West In- 
dies, and north of our northern boundary, is 2,800,- 
000 square miles, being .500,000 more than that of 
our whole Union, with Texas united. Indeed, we 
may add both the Californias to Texas, and unite- 



10 



them all to the Union, and still the area of the whole 
Avill be less than that of the British North Ameri- 
can possessions. And is it an American doctrine, 
that monarchies or despotisms are alone fitted for the 
government of extensive territories, and that 
a confederacy of States must be compressed 
"within narrower limits? Of all the forms of govern- 
ment, our confederacy is most specially adapted for 
an extended territory, and might, without the least 
' danger, but with increased security, and vastly aug- 
mented benefits, embrace a continent. Each State, 
within its own limits, controls all its local concerns, 
and the general government chiefly those which 
appertain to commerce and our foreign relations. 
Indeed, as you augment the number of States, the 
bond of union is stronger; for the opposition of any 
one State is much less dangerous and formidable, in 
a confederacy of thirty State.5, than of three. On 
this subject experience is tlie best test of truth. Has 
the Union been endangered by the advance in tlie 
number of States from thirteen'to twenty-six? Look 
also at all the new States that have been added to 
the Union since the adoption of the constitution, and 
tell me what one of all of them, either in war or 
peace, has ever failed most faithfully to perform its 
duties; and what one of them has ever proposed or 
threatened the existence of the government, or the 
dissolution of the Union? No rebellion or insurrec- 
tion has ever raised its banner within their lim- 
its, nor have traitorous or union-dissolving conven- 
tions, in war or in peace, ever been assembled with- 
in the boundary of any of the new States of the 
West; but in peace, they have nobly and«falthfully 
performed all their duties to the Union; and in war, 
the spirit of party has fled before an ardent patriot- 
ism, and all have rushed to the standard of their 
common country. From the shores of the Atlantic 
and the lakes of the North; from the banks of the 
Thames and the St. Lawrence, to those of the Ala- 
bama and the Missi.ssippi; from the snows of Canada 
to the sunny plains of the South— the soil of the 
Union is watered with the blood of the brave and 
patriotic chizcn soldiers of the West. And is it 
England would persuade us our territory and popu- 
lation will be too great to permit the reannexation of 
Texas? Let us see how stands the case with her- 
*self and other great powers of the world. The fol- 
lowing facts are presented from the most recent 
geographies: 

British empire— area, 8,100,000 square miles; po- 
pulation 200,000,000. 

Russian empire— area, 7,500,000 square miles; po- 
pulation 75,000,000. 

Chinese empire— area, 5,500,000 square miles, po- 
pulation 250,000,000. 

Brazil— area, 3,000,000 square miles; population 
6,000,000. ' 

United States (including Texas)— area, 2,318,000 
square miles; population 19,000,000. 

Here is one monarchy, (the British empire,) nearly 
four times as large as the United States, including 
Texa.s; and one monarchy and three depotisms 
combined, largely more than ten times, our area, 
also including Texas; and to assert, under these 
circumstances, that our government is to be over- 
thrown or endanged by an addition of one-seventh 
to its area, is to adopt the exploded argument 
of kings and despots against our system of con- 
federated States. 

President Monroe, a citizen of one of the old 
thirteen States, in his messa^'e of 1823, thus 
-speaks of the effects of the purchase of Louisiana: 



"This expansion of our population, and accession 
of new States to our Union, have had the happiest 
effect on all its highest interests. That it has emi- 
nently augmented our resources, and added to our 
strength and respectability as a power, is admitted 
by all. It is manifest, that by enlarging the basis of 
our system, and increasing the number of States, 
the system itself has been greatly strengthened in 
botli its branches. Consolidation and disunion 
have thereby been rendered equally impracticable. 
Each government, confiding in its own strength, has 
less to apprehend from the other; and in conse- 
quence, each, enjoying a greater freedom of action, 
is rendered more efficient for all the purposes for 
which it was mstituted." It is the system of con- 
federate States, united, but not consolidated, and in- 
corporating the great principle which led to the 
adoption of the constitution — of reciprocal free trade 
between all the States — that adapt such a government 
to the extent of a continent. The greater the extent 
of territory, the more enlarged is the power, and the 
more augmented the blessings of such a govern- 
ment. In war it will be more certain of success, and 
tlierefore wars will be less frequent; and in peace, it 
will be more respected abroad, and enjoy greater 
advantages at home, and the less unfavorable will 
be the influence on its pro.sperity, of the hostile 
policy of foreign nations. It may then have a home 
market, which, as the new and exchangeable pro- 
ducts of various soils and climates are augmented, 
will place its industry less within the controUing 
infiaence of foreign powers. Especially is this im- 
portant to the great manufacturing interest, that its 
home market, which is almost its only market, 
should be enlarged and extended by the accession of 
new territory, and an augmented population, em- 
braced within the boundaries of the Union, and 
therefore constituting a part of the domestic market. 
By the census of 1840, the total product of the 
mining and the manufactures of the Union, was 
ijS.282,194,985; and of this vast amount, by the trea- 
sury report, but $9,469,962 was exported, and 
found a market abroad. Almost its only market 
was the home market, thus demonstrating the 
vast importance to that "great interest of an acces- 
sion of territory and population at home. 

Nor is it only the mining and manufacturing in- 
terests that would feel the influence of such a new 
and 4'a])idly augmenting home market; but agricul- 
ture, commerce, and navigation, the products of the 
forest and fisheries, the freighting and .ship-building 
interests, would all feel a new impulse; and the 
great internal communications, by railroads and ca- 
nals, engaged in transporting our own exchangeable 
products, would find a great enlargement of their busi- 
ness and profits, and lead onward to the completion 
of the present and the construction of new improve- 
ments — thus identifying more closely all our great 
interests, bringing nearer and nearer to each other 
the remotest portions of the mighty v/hole, multi- 
)ilying their trade and intercourse, breaking down 
the barriers of local and sectional prejudice, and 
scouting the thought of disunion from the Ameri= 
can heart, and leaving the very term obsolete. In- 
deed, if we measure distance by the time in which 
it is traversed, this Union, with Texas reannexed, 
is much smaller in territory than the Union was at 
the adoption of the constitution. Then, tlie jour- 
ney from the capital to the then remotest corner of 
the republic could not be traversed in less than a 
month; while now, much less than one-half that 
time will take us to the mouth of the Del Norte, 



11 



the extreme southwestern limit of Texas. Such 
are the conquests which steam has already effected, 
upon the water and upon the land; and, when we 
consider the wonderful advance which they are still 
making, we must begin to calculate a journey upon 
land, by steam, from the Atlantic to the Del Norte, 
by hours, and not by weeks or months. And he 
who, under such circumstances, would still say that 
Texas was too large or distant for reannexation to 
the Union, must have been sleeping since the appli- 
cation of steam to locomotion. 

But if Texas is too large for incoi-poration into the 
Union, why is not Oregon also, which is nearly 
double the size of Texas.' and if Texas is too remote, 
why is not Oregon also, wlien ten days will take us 
to the mouth of the Del Norte, whereas three months 
by land, and five months by sea, must be required 
for the journey to the mouth of the Columbia. 
Texas, also, is a part of the valley of the Mississip- 
pi, watered by the same streams, and united with it 
by nature, as one and indivisible; whereas Oregon is 
separated from us by mountain barriers, and po^n-s 
its waters into another and distant ocean. And if 
Oregoiv; although disputed, and occcupied by a for- 
eign power, is, as I believe it to be, in truth and jus- 
tice, all our own, Texas was once, and for many 
years, within our limits, and may now again become 
our own by the free and unanimous consent, already 
given, of all by whom it is owned and occupied. I 
have not thus contrasted Texas and Oregon with a 
view to oppose to oppose the occupation of Oregon; 
for I have always been the ardent friend of that 
measure. I advocated it in a speech published long 
before I became a member of the Senate, and now, 
since the death of the patriotic and lamented Linn, 
I am the oldest surviving member of the special 
committee of the Senate which has pressed upon that 
body, for so many years, the immediate occupation 
of the whole Territory of Oregon. There, upon the 
shores of the distant Pacific, if my vote can accom- 
plifvh it, shall be planted the banner of the Union; 
and, with my consent, never shall be surrendered a 
single point of its coast, an atom of its soil, or a drop 
of all its waters. But while I am against the sur- 
render of any portion of Oregon, I am also against 
the resurrender of the territory of Texas; for, diuguise 
it as we may, it is a case of resun-enikr, when it once 
was all oiu- own, and now again is ours, by the free 
consent of those to whom it belongs, already given, 
and waiting only the ceremony of a formal accept- 
ance. Let not those, then, who advocate the occu- 
pation of Oregon, tell us that Texas is too distant, 
or too inaccessible, or too extensive for American 
occupancy. Let the friends of Oregon reflect, also, 
that Texas, at the head of the Arkansas, is contigu- 
ous to Oregon, and within twenty miles of the pass 
which commands the entrance through all that teni- 
tory, and the occupation of which pass by a foreign 
power, would separate the people and Territory of 
Oregon from the rest of the Union, and leave them 
an easy prey to the army of an invader. In truth, 
Texas is nearly as indispensable for the safe and per- 
manent occupation of Oregon, as it is for the security 
of New Orleans and the Gulf. 

The only remaining objection is the question of 
slavery. And have we a question which is to cur- 
tail the limits of the republic — to threaten its exist- 
enct — to aim a deadly blow at all its great and vital 
interests — to court alliances with foreign and with 
hostile powers — to recall our commerce and expel 
our manufactures from bays and rivers that once 
were all our own — to strike down the flag of the 



Union, as it advances towards our ancient bounda- 
rv — to resurrender a migluy territory, and invite to 
its occupancy the deadliest (in truth, the only) foes 
this government has ever encountered.' Is anti- 
slavery to do all this? And is it so to endanger New 
Orleans, and the valley and commerce and outlet of 
the West, that we would hold them, not by our own 
strength, but by the slender tenure of the will and 
of the mercy of Great Britain? If anti-slavery can 
effect all this, may God, in his infinite mercy, save 
and perpetuate this Union; for the efforts of man 
would be feeble and impotent. The avowed object 
of this party is the immediate abolition of slavery. 
For this, they traverse sea and land; for this, they 
hold conventions in the capital of England; and 
there they brood over schemes of abolition, in asso- 
ciation with British societies; there they join in de- 
nunciations of their countrymen, until their hearts 
are filled with treason; and they return home, 
Americans in name, but Englishmen in feelings and 
principles. Let us all, then, feel and know, whether 
we live North or South, that this party, if not van- 
quished, must overthrow the government, and dis- 
solve the Union. This party propose the immedi- 
ate abolition of slavery throughout the Union. If 
this were practicable, let us look at the consequences. 
By the returns of the last census, the products of the 
slaveholding States, in 1840, amounted in value to 
$404,429,638. These products, then, of the South, 
must have alone enabled it to furnish a home mar- 
ket for all the surplus maimfactures of the North, as 
also a market for the products of its forests and fish- 
eries; and giving a mighty impulse to all its com- 
mercial and navigating interests. Now, nearly all 
these agricultural products of the South which ac- 
complish all these great purposes, is the result of 
slave labor; and, strike down these products by the 
immediate abolition of slavery, and the markets of 
the South, for want of the means to purchase, will 
be lost to the people of the North; and North and 
South will be involved in one common ruin. Yes, 
in the harbors of the North (at Philadelphia, New 
York, and Boston) the vessels would rot at their 
wharves for want of exchangeable products to carry; 
the building of ships would cease, and the grass 
would grow in many a street now enUvened by an 
active and progressive industry. In the interior, 
the railroads and canals would languish for want 
of business; and the factories and manufactur- 
ing towns and cities, decaying and deserted, 
would stand as blasted monuments of the folly of 
man. One universal bankruptcy would overspread 
the country, together with all the demoralization 
and crime which ever accompany such a catastro- 
phe; and the notices at every corner would point 
only to sales on execution, by the constable, the sher- 
iff, the marshal, and the auctioneer; whilst the beg- 
gars would ask us in the streets, not for money, but 
for bread. Dark as the picture may be, it could not 
exceed the gloomy reality. Such would be the ef- 
fects in the North; whilst in the South, no human 
heart can conceive, nor pen describe, the dreadful 
consequences. Let us look at another result to the 
North. The slaves being emtmcipated, not by the 
South, but by the North, would fly there for safety 
and protection; and three millions of free blacks 
would be thrown at once, as if by a convulsion of 
nature, upon the States of the North. They would 
come there to their friends of the North, who had 
given them freedom, to give them also habitation, 
ibod, and clothing; and, not having it to give, many 
of them would perish from want and exposufej 



12 



■whilst the wretched remainder would be left to live 
as they could, by theft or charity. They would 
still be a degraded caste, free only in name, without 
the reality of freedom. A few might earn a 
wretched and precarious subsistence, by competing 
with the white laborers of the North, and reducing 
their wages to the lowest point in the sliding scale 
of starvation and misery; whilst the poor-house and 
the jail, the asylums of the deaf and dumb, the 
blind, the idiot and insane, would be filled to over- 
flowing; if, indeed, any asylum could be afforded to 
the millions of the negro race whom wretchedness 
and crime would drive to despair and madness. 

That these are sad realities, is proved by the 
census of 1840. I annex in an appendix a table, 
marked No. 1, compiled by me entirely from the 
official returns of the census of 1840, except as to 
prisons and paupers which m-e obtained from city 
and State returns, and the results are as follows: 

1st. The number of deaf and dumb, blind, idiots, 
and insane, of the negroes in the non-slaveholding 
States, is one out of every 96; in the slaveholding 
States, it is one out of every 672, or seven to one in 
favor of the slaves in this respect, as compared with 
the free blacks. 

2d. The number of whites, deaf and dumb, blind, 
idiots, and insane, in the non-slaveholding States, is 
one in every, 561, being nearly six to one against the 
free blacks in the same States. 

3d. The number of negroes who are deaf and 
dumb, blind, idiots, and insane, paupers, and in 
prison in the non-slaveholding States, is one out of 
every 6, and in the slaveholding States, one out of 
every 154; or twenty-two to one against the free 
blacks, as compared with the slaves. 

4th. Taking the two extremes of north and south, 
in Maine, the number of negroes returned as deaf 
and dumb, blind, insane, and idiots, by the census of 
1840, is one out of every twelve, and in slave- 
holding Florida, by the same returns, is one of 
every eleven hundred and five; or ninety-two to one, 
in favor of the slaves of Florida, as compared with 
the free blacks of Maine. 

By the report of the secretary of state of Massa- 
chusetts (of the 1st November, 1843) to the legisla- 
ture, there were then in the county jails, and houses 
of correction in that State, 4,020 "whites, and 364 
negroes; and adding the previous returns of the 
State prison, 255 whites and 32 blacks ; ma- 
king in all 4,275 whites, and 396 free blacks; 
being one out of every one hundred and seventy of 
the white, and one out of every twenty-one of the 
free black population: and by the official returns of 
the census of 1840, and their own official returns to 
their own legislature, one out of every thirteen of 
the free blacks of Massachusetts was either deaf 
and dumb, blind, idiot, or insane, or in prison — thus 
proving a degree of debasement and misery, on the 
part of the colored race, in that truly great State, 
which is appalling. In the last official report to the 
legislature of the warden of the penetentiary of 
eastern Pennsylvania, he says: "The whole num- 
ber of prisoners received from the opening of the 
institution, (October 25, 1829,) to January 1, 1843, 
ie 1,622; of these, 1,004 were white males, 533 
colored males; 27 wliite females, and 58 colored 
femalesf" or one out of every 847 of the white, and 
one out of every sixty-four of the negro population; 
and of the white female convicts, one out of every 
16,288; and of the colored female convicts, one out 
of every 349 in one prison, showing a degree of 
guilt and debasement on the pai't of the colored 



females, revolting and unparalleled. When such 
is the debasement of the colored females, far ex- 
ceeding even that of the white females in the most 
corrupt cities of Europe, extending, too, throughout 
one-half the limits of a great State, we may begia 
to form some idea of the dreadful condition of the 
free blacks, and how much worse it is than that of 
the slaves, whom we are asked to liberate and con- 
sign to a similar condition of guilt and misery. 
Where, too, are these examples? The first is in the 
great State of Massachusetts, that, for 64 years, has 
never had a slave, and whose free black population, 
being 5,463 in 1790, and but 8,669 at present, is 
nearly the same free negro population, and their de- 
scendants, whom for more than half a century she has 
strived,but strived in vain, to elevate in rank and com- 
fort and morals. The other example is the eastern half 
of the great State of Pennsylvania, including Phila- 
delphia, and the Q.uakers of the State, who, with an 
industry and humanity that never tired, and a charily 
that spared not time or money, have exerted every ef- 
fort to improve the morals and better the condition of 
their free black population. But where are the great 
results? Let the cen.sus and the reports of the pris- 
ons answer. Worse — incomparably worse, than the 
condition of the slaves, and demonstrating that the 
free black, in the midst of his friends in the North, 
is sinking lower every day in the scale of want and 
crime and misery. The regular physicians' report 
and review, published in 1840, says the "facts, then, 
show an increasing disproportionate number of col- 
ored prisoners in the eastern penitentiary." In con- 
trasting the condition, for the same year, of the pen- 
itentiaries of all the non-slaveholding States, as 
compared with all the slaveholding States in which 
returns are made, I find the number of free blacky 
is fifty-four to one, as compared with the slaves, in 
proportion to population, who are incarcerated in 
these prisons. There are no paupers among the 
slaves, whilst in the non-slaveholding States great is 
the number of colored paupers. 

From the Belgian statistics, compiled by Mr. 
duetelet, the distinguished secretary of the Royal 
Academy of Brussels, it appears that in Belgium 
the number of deaf and dumb was one out of every 
2,180 persons; in Great Britain, one out of every 
1,539; in Italy, one out of every 1,539; and in Eu- 
rope, one out of every 1,474. Of the blind, one out 
of every 1,009 in Belgium; one out of every 800 in 
Prussia; one out of every 1,600 in France; and one 
out of every 1,666 in Saxony; and no further re- 
turns, as to the bhnd,are given. — [Belgian Jnnuaire, 
1836, pages 213, 215, 217.] But the table shows an 
average in Europe of one of every 1,474 of deaf 
and dumb, and of about one out of every 1,000 of 
blind; whereas our census shows, of the deaf and 
dumb whites of the Union, one out of every 2,193; 
and of the blacks in the non-slaveholding States, one 
out of every 656; also, of the blind, one out of every 
2,821 of the whites of the Union, and one out of 
every 516 of the blacks in the non-slaveholding 
States. Thus we have not only shown the condi- 
tion of the blacks of the non-slaveholding States to 
be far worse than that of the slaves of the South, 
but also for worse than the condition of the people 
of Europe, deplorable as that may be. It has been 
heretofore shown that the free blacks in the non- 
slaveholding States were becoming, in an aitgmenled 
proportion, more debased in morals as they increased 
in numbers; and the same proposition is true in other 
respects. Thus, by the census of 1830, the number 
of deaf and dumb of the free blacks of the non- 



13 



slaveholding States, was one out of every 996; and 
of blind, one out of every 893; whereas we have 
seen, by the census of 1840, the number of free 
blacks, deaf and dumb, in the non-slaveholding 
States, was one out of every 656; and of blind, one 
out of every 516. In the last ten years, then, the 
alarming fact is proved, that the proportionate num- 
ber of free black deaf and dumb, and also of blind, 
has increased about fifty per cent. No statement as to 
the insane or idiots is given in the census of 1830. 

Let us now examine the future increase of free 
blacks in the States adjoining the slaveholding 
States, if Texas is not reannexed to the Union. By 
the census of 1790, the number of free blacks in the 
States (adding New York) adjoining the slavehold- 
ing States, was 13,953. In the States (adding New 
York) adjacent to the slaveholding States, the num- 
ber of free blacks, by the census of 1840, was 
148,107; being an aggregate increase of nearly eleven 
to one in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Now, by the census 
and table above given, the aggregate number of free 
blacks who were deaf and dumb, blind, idiot or in- 
sane, paupers, or in prisons, in the non-slaveholding 
States, was 26,342, or one in every six of the whole 
number. Now if the free black population should 
increase in the same ratio, in the aggregate, in New 
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, 
and Illinois, from 1840 to 1890, as it did from 1790 
to 1840, the aggregate free black population in these 
six States would be, in 1890, 1,600,000; in 1865, 
800,000; in 1853, 400,000; and the aggregate number 
in these six States of free blacks, according to the 
present proportion, who would, then be deaf and 
dumb, blind, idiot or insane, paupers or in prison, 
would be, in 1890, 266,666; in 1865, 133,333; and in 
1853, 66,666; being, as we have seen, one-sixth of 
the whole number. Now, if the annual cost of sup- 
porting these free blacks in these asylums, and other 
houses, including the interest on the sums expended 
in their erection, and for annual repairs, and the 
money disbursed for the arrest, trial, conviction, 
and transportation of the criminals, amounted to 
fifty dollars for each, the annual tax on the people of 
these six States, on account of these free blacks, 
would be, in 1890, $13,333,200; in 1865, $6,666,600; 
and in 1853, |,3,333,300. 

Does, then, humanity require that we should render 
the blacks more debased and miserable, by this pro- 
cess of abolition, with greater temptations to crime, 
with more of real guilt, and less of actual coniforts.' 
As the free blacks are thrown more and more upon 
the cities of the North, and compete more there with 
the white laborer, the condition of the blacks be- 
comes worse and more perUous every day, until we 
bave already seen, the masses of Cincinnati and 
Philadelphia rise to expel the negro race beyond 
their limUs. Immediate abolition, whilst it deprived 
thp South of the means to purchase the products 
Effid manufactures of the North and West, would fill 
those States with an inundation of free black popula- 
tion, that would be absolutey intolerable. Imme- 
diate abolition, then, has but few advocates; but if 
emancipation were not immediate, but only gradual, 
wliilst slavery existed to any great extent in the 
slaveholding States bordering upon the States of the 
North and West, this exptvlsion, by gradual aboli- 
tion, of the free blacks into the States immediately 
north of them, would be very considerable, and 
rapidly augmenting every year. If this process of 

fradual abolition only dourjled the number of free 
lacks, to be thrown upon the States of the North 



and West, then, a reference to the tables before pre- 
sented, proves that the number of free blacks in New 
York, Pennsylvania, New .Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, and 
Illinois would be, in 1890, 3,200,000; in 1865, 1,600,- 
000; and in 1853, 800,000; and that the annual ex- 
penses to the people of these six States, on account of 
the free blacks would be, in 1890, $26,666,400; in 
1865, $13,333,200; and in 1853, $6,666,600. 

It was in view, no doubt, of these facts, that Mr. 
Davis, of New York, declared, ujion the floor of 
Congress, on the 29th December, 1843, that "the 
abolition of slvaery in the southern States must be 
followed by a dehtge of black population to the JVwtA, 
filling our jai'/s and poor ho%ises, ai\d bringing destruc- 
tion upon the labming pm'tion of our people." Dr. 
Duncan also, of Cincmnati, Ohio, ui his speech in 
Congress on the 6th January, 1844, declared the 
result of abolition would be to inundate the North 
with free blacks, described by him as "paupers, 
beggars, thieves, assassins, and desperadoes; all, or 
nearly all, penniless and destitute, without skill, 
means, industry, or perseverance to obtain a liveli- 
hood; each possessing and cherishing revenge for 
supposed or real wrongs. No man's fireside, person, 
family, or property, would be safe by day or night. 
It note reqxdres the whole energies of the law and 
the whole vigilance of the police of all our princi- 
pal cities to restrain and keep in subordination the 
few straggling/ree negroes which now infest them." 
If such be the case now, what will be the result 
when, by abolition, gradual or immediate, the num- 
ber of these free negroes shall be doubled and quad- 
rupled, and decupled, in the more northern of the 
slaveholding States, before slavery had receded from 
their limits, and nearly the whole of which free 
black popvdation would be thrown on the adjacent 
non-slaveholding States. Much, if not all of this 
great evil, will be prevented by the reannexation of 
Texas. Since the purchase of Louisiana and Flo- 
rida, a:id the settlement of Alabama and Mississippi, 
there have been carried into this region, as the 
census demonstrates, from the States of Delaware, 
Maryland, Virginia, and Kentucky, half a million 
of slaves, including their descendants, that other- 
wise would now be within the limits of those four 
States. Such has been the result as to have dimin- 
ished, in two of these States nearest to the North, 
the number of their slaves far below what they were 
at the census of 1790, and to have reduced them at 
the census of 1840, in Delaware, to the small num- 
ber of 2,605. Now, if we double the rate of dimin- 
ution, as we certainly will by the reannexation of 
Texas, slavery will disappear from Delaware in 
ten years, and from Maryland in twenty, and have 
greatly diminished in Virginia and Kentucky. As, 
then, by reannexation, slavery advances in Texas, 
it must recede to the same extent from the more north- 
ern of the slaveholding States; and consequently, 
the evil to the northern States, from the expulsion into 
them of free blacks, by abolition, gradual or immedi- 
ate, would thereby be greatly mitigated, if not entirely 
prevented. In the District of Columbia, by the 
drain to the new States and Territories of the South 
and Southwest, the slaves have been reduced from 
6,119 in 1830, to 4,694 in 1840; and if, by the re- 
annexation, slavery receded in a double ratio, then 
it would disappear altogether from the District in 
twelve years; and that question, which now occu- 
pies so much of the time of Congress, juid threatens 
so seriously the harmony, if not the existence of the 
union, would be put at rest by the reannexation of 
Texas. This reannexation, then, would only changs 



14 



the locality of the slaves, and of the slaveholdlng 
States, without augmenting their number. And is 
Texas to be lost to the Union, not by the question 
of the existence of slavery, but of its locality only? 
If slavery be considered by the States of the North 
as an evil, why should they prefer that its location 
should be continued in States on their border, rather 
than in the more distant )3ortions of the Union. It 
is clear that, as slavery advanced in Texas, it would 
recede from the States bordering on the free States 
of the North and West; and thus they would be re- 
leased from actual contact with what they consid- 
er an evil, and also from all influx from those States 
of a large and constantly augmenting free black pop- 
ulation. As regards the slaves, the African being 
from a tropical climate, and from the region of the 
burning sands and sun, his comfort and condition 
■would be greatly improved, by a transfer from 
northern latitudes to the genial and most salubri- 
ous climate of Texas. There he would never suf- 
fer from that exposure to cold and frost, which he 
feels so much more severely than any other race; 
and there, also, from the great fertility of the soil, 
and exuberance of its products, his supply of food 
"would be abundant. If a desire to improve the con- 
dition and increase the comforts of the slave really 
animated the anti-slavery party, they would be the 
■warmest advocates of the reannexation of Texas. 
Nor can it be disguised that, by the reannexation, 
as the number of free blacks augmented in the slave- 
holding States, they would be diffused gradually 
through Texas into Mexico, and Central and South- 
ern America, where nine-tenths of their present pop- 
ulation are already of the colored races, and where, 
from their vast preponderance in number, they are 
not a degraded caste, but upon a footing, not merely 
of legal, but what is far more important, of actual 
equality with the rest of the population. Here, 
then, if Texas isreannexed throughout the vast re- 
gion and salubrious and delicious climate of Mexi- 
co, and of Centra] and Southern America, a 
large and rapidly increasing portion of the 
African race will disappear from the limits of 
the Union. The process will be gradual and 
progressive, without a shock, and without a con- 
Yulsion; whereas, by the loss of Texas, and the 
imprisonment of the slave population of the 
Union within its present limits, slavery would hv- 
crease in nearly all the slaveholdlng Slates, and a 
change in their condition would become impossible; 
or if it did take place by sudden or gradual aboli- 
tion, the result would as certainly be the sudden or 
gradual introduction of hundreds of thousands of 
free blacks into the States of the North; and if their 
condition there is already deplorable, how would it 
be when their number there should be augmented 
tenfold, and the burden become intolerable?" Then, 
indeed, by the loss of the markets of Texas — by 
the taxation imposed by an immense free black pop- 
ulation, depressing the value of all property — then, 
also, from the competition for employment of the 
free black with the white laborer of the North, — 
his wages would be reduced until they would fall 
to ten or twenty cents a day, and starvation and 
misery would be introduced among the white labor- 
ing population. There is but one way in which 
tlie North can escape these evils; and that is the re- 
annexation of Texas, which is the only safety-valve 
for the whole Union, and the only practicable outlet 
for the African population, through Texas, into Mex- 
ico and Central and Southern America. There is 
a congenial climaie for the African race. There 



cold and want and hunger will not drive the African, 
as we see it does in the NorUi, into the poor-house 
and the jail, and the asylums of the idiot and insane. 
There the boundless and almost unpeopled territory 
of Mexico, and of Central and Southern America, 
with its delicious climate, and most prolific soil, 
renders most easy the means of subsistence; and 
there they would not be a degraded caste, but equals 
among equals, not only by law, but by feeling and 
association. 

The medical writers all say, (and experience con- 
firms the assertion,) that ill-treatment, ovei-work, 
neglect in infancy and sickness, drunkenness, want, 
and crime, are the chief causes of idiocy, blindness,, 
and lunacy; whilst none will deny that want and 
guilt fill the poor-house and the jail. Why is it, then,, 
that the free black is (as the census proves) much 
more wretched in condition, and debased in morals, 
than the slave? These free blacks are among the 
people of the North, and their condition is most de- 
plorable in the two great States of Maine and Mas- 
sachusetts, where, since 1780, slavery never existed. 
Now, the people of the North are eminently hu- 
mane, religious, and intelligent. What, then, is the 
cause of the misery and debasement of their free 
black population? It is chiefly in the fact that the 
free blacks, among their real superiors — our own 
white population — are, and ever will be, a degraded 
caste, free only in name, without any of the bless- 
ings of freedom. Here they can have no pride, and 
no aspirations — no .spirit of industry or emulation; 
and, in most cases, to live, to vegetate, is their only 
desire. Hence, the efforts to improve their condi- 
tion, so long made, in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, 
and many other States, have proved utterly unavail- 
ing; and it grows worse every year, as that popula- 
tion augments in numbers. In vain do many of the 
States give the negro the right of sufli'rage, and all 
the legal privileges of the whites: the color marks 
the dreadful difference which, here, at least, ages 
cannot obhterate. The negroes, however equal iri 
law, ai'e not equal in fact. They are nowhere found 
in the colleges or universities, upon the bench or at 
the bar, in the muster, or the jury-box, in legisla- 
tive or executive stations; nor does marriage, the 
great bond of society, unite the white with the ne- 
gro, except a rare occurrence of such unnatural al- 
liance, to call forth the scorn or disgust of the whole 
commvmity. Indeed, I could truly say, if passing 
into the immediate presence of the Most High, that,, 
in morals and comforts, the free black is far below 
the slave; and that, while the condition of the slave 
has been greatly ameliorated, and is improving ev- 
ery year, that of the free blacks (as the oflicial ta- 
bles demonstrate) is sinking in misery and debase- 
ment at every census, ^aa, from time to time, by 
emancipation and other causes, they are augmented 
in number. Can it, then, be sinful to refuse to 
change the condition of the slaves to a position of 
far greater wretchedness and debasement, by re- 
ducing them to the level of the free-negro race, to 
occupy the asylums of the deaf and dumb, the 
blind, the idiot and insane; to wander as mendicants;, 
to live in pestilent alleys and hovels, by theft op 
charity; or to prolong a miserable existence in the 
poor-house or the jail? All history proves that no 
people on earth are more deeply imbued ■with 
the love of freedom, and of its diffusion 
everywhere, among all who can appreciate 
and enjoy its blessings, than the people of the South;, 
and if the negro slave were improved in morals and 
comforts, and rendered capable of self-government, 



15 



by emancipation, it would not be gi-adufJ, but im-7 South America — area, 6,500,000 square miles; pop- 
mediate, if the profits of slavery were tenfold greater ulation 14,000,000—1,000,000 white, 4,000,000 In- 
than they are. Is" slavery, then, never to disappear dians; and the remainder, being 9,000,000, blacks and 
from the Union? If confined within its present other colored races. 



limits, I do not perceive when or how it is to termi 



nate. It is tme, Mr. George Tucker, the distinguish- -region, can never be opened but by the reannexa- 

rsity,' tion of Texas; but in that event, there, in that ex- 



ed Virginian, and professor in their great university 
has demonstrated that, in a period not exceeding 
eighty years, and probably less, from the density 
of population in all the slaveholding States, hired 
labor would be as abundant and cheap as slave 
labor, and that all pecunimij motive for the continu- 
ance of slavery would then have ceased. But would 
it, therefore, then disappear? No, it certainly would 
not; for, at the lowest ratio, the slaves would then 
number at least ten millions. Could such a mass 
be emancipated? And if so, what would be the re- 
sult' We have seen, by the census and other proof, 
that one-sixth of .the free blacks must be supported 
at the public expense; and that, at the low rate of 
^50 each, it would cost |,80,000,000 per annum to 
be raised by taxation to support the free blacks then 
in the South requiring support, namely: 1,666,666, if 
manumission were permitted; but as such a tax could 
not be collected, emancipation would be as it now is, 
prohibiled by Imo, and slavery could not disappear in 
this manner, even when it became unprofitable. 
No, ten milhons of free blacks, permitted to roam at 
large in the Omits of the South, could never be toler- 
ated. Again, then, the question is asked, is slavery 
never to disappear from the Union? This is a start- 
ling and momentous question, but the answer is 
easy, and the proof is clear; it%vill certainly disappear 
if Texas is reannexed to the Union; not by abolition, 
but against and in spite of all its frenzy, slowly, 
and gradually, by diffusion, as it has already thus 
nearly receded from several of the more northern 
of the slaveholding States, and as it will continue 
thus more rapidly to recede by the reannexation of 
Texas, and finally, in the distant future, without a 
shock, without abolition, without a convvdsion, 
disappear into and through Texas, into Mexico and 
Central and Southern America. Thus, that same 
overruling Providence that watched over the land- 
ing of the emigrants and pilgrims at Jamestown 
and Plymouth; that gave us the victory in our strug- 
gle for independence; that guided by His inspiration 
the framers of our wonderful constitution; that has 
thus far preserved this great Union from dangers 
so many and imminent, and is now shielding 
it from abolition, its most dangerous and in- 
ternal foe — will open Texas as a safety-valve,, 
into and through which slavery will slowly and 
gradually recede, and finally disappear into the, 
boundless regions of Mexico, and Central anu 
Southern America. Beyond the Del Norte, slavery 
will not pass; not only because it is forbidden by 
law, but because the colored races there prepon- 
derate in the ratio of tea to one over the whites; and 
liolding, as they do, the government, and most of 
the offices in their own possession, they will never 
permit the enslavement of any portion of the colored 
race which makes and executes the laws of the 
country. In Bradford's Atlas, the facts are given 
as follows: 

Mexico — area, 1,690,000 square miles; population 
8,000,000 — one-sixth white, and all the rest Indians, 
Africans, mulattoes, zambos, and other colored 
ffaces. 



The outlet for our negro race, through this vast 



tensive country, bordering upon our negro popula- 
tion, and four times greater in area than the whole 
Union, with a sparse population of but three to the 
square mile, where nine-tenths of the population is 
of the colored races, there, upon that fertile soil, and 
in that delicious climate, so admirably adapted to 
the negro race, as all experience has now clearly 
proved, the free black would find a home. There, 
also, as slaves, in the lapse of time, from the density 
of population and other causes, are emancipated, 
they will disappear from time to time west of the 
Del Norte, and beyond the limits of the Union, 
among a race of their own color; will be diff'used 
throughout this vast region, where they will not be 
a degraded caste, and where, as to climate, and social 
and moral condition, and all the hopes and comforta 
of life, they can occupy, among equals, a position 
they can never attain in any part of this Union. 

The reannexation of Texas would strengthen and 
fortify the whole Union, and antedate the period 
when our own country would be the first and great- 
est of all the powers of the earth. To the South, 
and Southwest it would give peace and security; to 
agriculture and manufactures, to the products of the 
mines, the forest, and fisheries, new and important 
markets, that otherwise must soon be lost forever. 
To the commercial and navigating interests, it would 
give a new impulse; and not a canal or a railroad 
throughout the Union, that would not derive in- 
creased business, and augmented profits; whilst the 
great city of New York, the centre of most of the 
business of the Union, would take a mighty step in 
advance towards that destiny which must place her 
above London in wealth, in business and popu- 
lation. Indeed, when, as Americans, we look at 
the city of New York, its deep, accessible and ca- 
pacious harbor, united by canals and the Hudson, 
with the St. Lawrence and the lakes, the Ohio, and 
the Mississippi, with two-thirds of the imports, and 
one-third of the exports of the whole Union, with, 
all its trade, internal, coastwise, and foreign, and 
reflect how great and rapidly augmenting an acces- 
sion to its business would be made by the reanex- 
ation of Texas; and know that, by the failure of this 
measure, what is lost to us is gained by England, 
can we hesitate, or do we never wish to see the day 
when New York shall take from London the tri- 
dent of the ocean, and the command of the com- 
merce of the world? Or do we prefer London to^ 
New York, and England to America? And do tho 
opponents of reannexation suppose that a British 
Parliament, and not an American Congress, sits in 
the capitol of the Union. Shall, then, Texas be our 
own, with all its markets, commerce, and products, 
or shall we drive it into the arms of England, now 
outstretched to receive it, and striving to direct its 
destiny? If we refuae the reannexation, then, by the 
force of circumstances, soon passing beyond the 
control as well of, this country as of Texas, she will 
pass into the hands of England. The refusal of re- 
annexation will, of course, produce no friendly feel- 
ings in Texas tov/ards this country. United with 



Central America — area, 186,000 square miles; po- ; this will be the direct appeal of England to the iil- 
pulation nearly 2,000,000 — one-sixth white, and the terests of Texas. She will offer to Texas a mar- 
jreat negroes, zambos, and other colored races. ) ket in England, free of duty, for all her cotton, upon 



16 



tke assent of Texas to receive in exchange British 
manufactures free of duty; and such a treaty would 
no doubt soo» be concluded. The ships and mer- 
chants atid capital of England will be transported 
to the coast of Texas. Texas has neither ships, nor 
capital, nor manufactures, but England will supply 
all, and receive in return the cotton of Texas. Two 
rations with reciprocal free trade are nearly iden- 
tical in feeling and interest, except that the larger 
power will preponderate, and Texas become a com- 
mercial dependency of England, and isolated from 
us in feelijig.s, in interest, in trade, and intercourse. 
Texas would then be our great rival in the cotton 
markets of the world, and she would have two vast 
ndvantages over the cotton-growing interests of the 
Union: Ist, in sending to England her cotton, free of 
duty, which is an advantage of 7| per cent., aug- 
mented five per cent, thereon by the act of 15th 
May, 1840, 3 Victoria, chap. 17, which made the 
duties paid in England on our cotton crop of 1840, 
^,247,800, ajid all which, to the extent of their 
crop, would be saved to the planters of Texas, giv- 
ing them this great advantage over our planters, 
Ct<.rried out into all the goods manufactured in Eng- 
land out of the free cotton of Texas, and also de- 
priving our cotton manufacturers of the advantage 
tliey now enjoy from this duty, over the cotton 
manufacturers of England. 2d. In enabhng the 
planters of Texas to receive, in exchange for their 
cotton, the cheap manufactures of England free of 
duty. These two causes combined, would give the 
Texas cotton planters an advantage of at least 20 

ger cent, over the cotton planters of the Union, 
uch a rivalry we could not long maintain; and cot- 
ton planting would gradually decline in the Union, 
and with that dechne, would be lost the markets of 
the South for the hemp, and beef, and pork, and 
flour of the West, and' the manufactures of the 
!North. Now, is it just, is it safe or expedient, to 
place the South anci the Southwest in a position in 
"which they will constantly behold an adjacent cot- 
ton-growing country supplanting them in the cul- 
ture and sale of their great staple, for the reason that 
the one is, and the other is not, a part of the Union? 
Must we behold Texas every day selling her cotton 
to England free of all duty, whilst our cotton is 
subjected to a heavy impost? and must we also per- 
ceive Texas receiving in exchange the manufactures 
of England free of duty, whilst here they are ex- 
cluded by a prohibitory tariff? Can the tariff itself 
Stand such an issue; or, if it does, can the Union 
sustain the mighty shock? Daily and hourly, to the 
South and Southwest, would be presented the strong 
inducement to unite icitli Texas, and secure the 
same markets free of duty for their cotton, and re- 
ceive the same cheap manufactures, free of duty, in 
exchange. Nor would tliese be the only dangers 
Incurred, and temptations presented, by this fearful 
experiment. We would see the exports of Texas 
carried directly abroad from their own pmis, and the 
imports brought into their own ports directly in 
exchange; thus building up their own cities, 
and their own commerce, whilst here, they 
•would see that same business transacted for 
them, chiefly in New York, Boston, and Philadel- 
j)hia. They would see New York receiving annu- 
ally one hundred millions of imports, nearly fifty 
millions of which was for resale to them, and all 
■which they would receive directly in their own ports 
if united with Texas, thus striking down nearly one 
half the commerce of the great city of New York, 
and, transferring it to the South and Southwest. 



The South and Southwest, whilst they would per- 
ceive the advancing prosperity of Texas, and theic 
own decline, would also feel, that the region with 
which they were united had placed them in this 
position, and subjected them to these disasters by 
the refusal of reannexation. Whatever tlie result 
may be, no true friend of the Union can desire to 
subject it to such hazards; and this alone ought to be 
a conclusive argument in favor of the reannexation 
of Texas. One of three results is certain to fol- 
low from the refusal of reannexation: 1st. The 
separation of the South and Southwest from the 
North, and their reunion with Texas. Or, 2d. 
The total overthrow of the tariff. Or, 3d. A system 
of unbounded smuggling through Texas into the - i 
West, and Southwest. Accompanying the last re- I 

suit, would be a disregard of the laws, and an utter ' 

demoralization of the whole country, a practical re- 
peal of the tariff, and loss of the revenues which it 
supplies, and a necessary resort to direct taxation to 
support the government. 

As a commercial dependency, Texas would be 
almost as much under the control of England, as if 
she were a colony of England; and in the event of 
war between that nation and this, the interests of 
Texas would all be on the side of England. It 
would be the interest of Texas, in the event of such 
a war, to aid England to seize New Orleans, or at 
least in blockading the mouth of the Mississippi, 
so as to exclude the cotton of the West from 
a foreign market, and leave to Texas almost 
the entire monopoly. Even if Texas were neu- 
tral, certainly our power would not be as strong , 
in the gulf for the defence of New Orleans, 
and the mouth of the Mississippi, as if we owned 
and commanded all the streams which emptied into 
it — as if their people were our countrymen, and all 
the rivers and harbors and coast of Texas were our 
own. We should be weaker, then, without Texas, 
even if she remained neutral; but I have shown it 
would be her interest to exclude our cotton from 
foreign markets, and to co-operate with England for 
that purpose. But if she did remain neutral, could 
she preserve, or would England respect, her neu- 
trality? Without an army, ships, or forts, no one 
will pretend that her neutral position could be main- 
tained; and England could enter any of her streams 
or harbors, and take possession of any of her soil at 
pleasure. Would she do so in the event of a war 
with America? Let the events of the last war an- 
swer the question. Then, within sight of Valparaiso, 
within the waters of neutral Spain, she captured the 
Essex, after a sanguinary and glorious defence. 
This was as complete a violation of the neutreJ i 

rights of Spain, under the law of nations, as if she 
had entered upon her soil to molest us. At Payal, 
Porto Praya, and Tunis, she captured other Ameri- 
can vessels, within the harbors and under the guns 
of the forts of neutral powers; and, indeed, as to 
neutral ships and goods, and all the maritime rights 
of neutral nations, she acted the part of the outlaw 
and buccaneer, rather than of a civilized kingdom; 
and violated the neutral rights of all the world. Nor 
were her lawless acts confined to the coasts and 
harbors of neutral powers, but extended also to an 
actual use and occupation of their soil. During the 
last war, Spain was at peace with England and 
America; but England, in open violation of the neu- ;| 

tral rights of Sj)ain, seized upon a portion of Florida, , 

(then a Spanish territory,) whence she fulminated 
her incendiary appeals to the slaves for a servile in- 
surrection and massacre; and commenced, at Pensa- , 



17 



cola, her first preparations for the attack of New Or- 
leans. And such, precisely, would be the conduct of 
Great Britain, in the event of another war with 
America. She would land suddenly at any point of 
the coast of Texas, and move along the Sabine, in 
the Territory of Texas, to the .'2;reat bend, where it 
approaches within about one hundred miles of the 
Mississippi; and the intermediate territory Ijeing but 
tliinly settled, she could advance rapidly across, 
seize the passage of the Mississippi, and cut off all 
communication from above, and descend upon New 
Orleans. Or she might proceed a little further, 
through the territory of Texas to Red river, the 
southern bank of which is within the limits of Tex- 
as, and equip her expedition; then Ijy water descend 
the Red river, exciting a sei-vile insurrection, and 
seize the Mississippi at the mouth of Red river. All 
these movements she might and would make through 
Texas. In this way she would seize and fortify her 
position on the Mi-ssissippi, and New Orleans must 
fall, if cut off from all communication from above. 
But, even if she only retained the single point on 
the Mississippi, it would as effectually command its 
outlet, and arrest its commerce ascending or descend- 
ing, as if possessed of New Orleans. Whatever 
point she seized on the Mississipjii, there she would 
entrench and fortify, and tens of thousands of lives, 
and hundreds of millions of dollars, would be re- 
quired in drivmg her from this position. All this 
would be prevented by the reannexation of Texas. 
The Sabine and Red river would then be all our 
own, and no such movement could be made for the 
seizure of the Mississippi. Nor should it be for- 
gotten, that, when she reached the Red river, and at 
a navigable point upon its southern bank in Texas, 
there she would meet sixty thousand Indian war- 
riors of our own, and half as many of Texas, 
whom her gold, and her intrigues and promises 
would, as they always have done, incite to the work 
of death and desolation. If we desire to know 
what she would do under such circumstances, let us 
look back to Hampton and the Raisin, and they 
will answer the question. If for no other rea- 
son, the fact that for many hundred miles you have 
placed these Indians on the borders of Texas, sep- 
arated only by the Red river, and on the frontiers of 
Louisiana and Arkansas, demands that, as an act of 
justice to these States, and as essential for their se- 
curity and that of the Mississippi, you should have 
pcssession of Texas. Our boundary and limits will 
always be incomplete, without the possession of 
Texas; and v.'ithout it the gi-eat valley and its 
mightiest streams will remain forever dismembered 
and mutilated. Now, if we can acquire it, we should 
accomplish tlie object; for, in all jirobability, the op- 
portunity, now neglected, will be lost forever. There 
may have been good reasons, a few weeks or months 
succeeding the recognition of the independence of Tex- 
as, and belbre it was recognised by any other power, 
why it might then have been premature to have re- 
annexed the territory; but now, when eignt years 
liave elapsed since the declaration and establishment 
of the independence of Texas, and seven years since 
it was recognised by us, and several years since the 
recognition by France, Holland, and England, there 
can be no possible objection to the measure. 

I have shown that, in the event of a war with 
England, Texas, if we repelled her from our em- 
brace, v/oald become a complete dependency of 
EngJiUid, ahenated from us in feeling, in trade and 
j iiitercourse, and identified in all with England. But 
would it rest here? No. Texas would first become 
A dependency, and then, in fact, a colony of Eng- 



land; and her arms, and ships, and power, would 
be thus transported to the mouth of tlie Mississippi. 
The oi-igin of the immense empire of England in In- 
dia, was in two small trading establishments. Then 
followed a permanent occupancy of part of the coast; 
and India in time became a British colony. And so 
will it be with Texas, which can furnish England — 
what it is noio ascertained India never can — a sup- 
ply of cotton. The largest vote ever given in Texas 
was about 12,000. Of this the Bi'itish emigrants 
and British party now number about 1,000; which, 
by the unfriendly feelings created by a final refusal 
of reannexation, and the necessity of seeking another 
alliance, would be immediately increased to four 
thousand, leaving a majority of 4,000 only against 
a union with England. Immediately a rapid emi- 
gration from England to Texas would be commenced 
under their colonization laws, which give the emi- 
grant a home, and make him a voter in six months, 
and five thousand English emigrants would over- 
come the majority of 4,000, and give England, 
through the ballot-box, tlie command of Texas. 
The preperation for this colonization of Texas from 
England has already been made. One English 
contract has already been signed with the govern- 
ment of Texas, for the emigration there of one 
thousand families; and three thousand one hun- 
dred more would give the majority to England. It 
maybe, to avoid the difficulty as to slavery at home, 
the nominal government for local purposes would 
be left with Texas, or rather with English voters 
and merchants in Texas; but in all that concerns the 
commerce and foreign relations of Texas, in all that 
concerns the occupancy and use of Texas in the 
event of war, the supremacy and authority of the 
British Parliament would be acknowledged. Much 
is concealed as regards the ultimate designs of Eng- 
land in regard to Texas; for to acknowledge them 
now would be to defeat them, by insuring reannex- 
ation to the Union; but enough has transpired to 
prove her object. Let us examine the facts. Three 
treaties were made between Great Britain and Tex- 
as, viz: on the 13th, 14th, and 16th of November, 
1840. The preamble of one of these is as follows: 

"Her Majesty, the dueeii of the United Kuigdom 
of Great Britain and Ireland, being desirous of put- 
ting an end to the hostilities Vw'hich still continue to 
be carried on between Mexico and Texas, has of- 
fered her mediation to the contending parties, to 
bring about a pacification between them." 

Article 1. "The republic of Texas agrees that if, by 
means of the mediation of her Britannic Majesty, an 
unlimited truce shall be established between Mexico 
and Texas, within 30 days after this present conven- 
tion shall have been communicated to the Mexiccin 
government by her Britannic Majesty's mission at 
Mexico; and if, within six months from the day that 
that communication shall have been so made, Mex- 
ico shall have concluded a treaty of peace with Tex- 
as, then, and in such case, the republic of Texas will 
take upon itself a portion amounting to cf 1,000,000 
sterling of the capital of the foreign debt contracted 
by the republic of Mexico, before the 1st of Janua- 
ry, 1835?" 

Tlie first article of the next treaty declares : 
"There shall be reciprocal liberty of commerce 
and navigation between and amongst the citizens of 
the republic of Texas and the subjects of her Brit- 
annic Majesty." The third article authorizes Brit- 
ish merchants to carry on tlieir business in Texas, 
■ and British vessels of tear to enter freely all her ports. 
I Next comes a treaty between Great Britain and 
TexaSj which grants to England the right of search 



18 



as fully and effectually, and in terms more obnox- 
ious, than the celebrated quintuple treaty to which 
it refers, and adopts. It grants to the vessels of war 
of both parties, the right of searching merchant ves- 
sels by either party, and expressly provides for the 
exercise of this right, "in the gulf of Mexico." 
It provides also forthe exercise of this right, when- 
ever either of the parties shall have reason to suspect 
that the vessel is or has been engaged in the slave- 
trade, or has been fitted otU for the said trade; and all 
this is to be done, whether the vessel carries the flag 
of Texas or not. For saving us from the conse- 
quence of the quintuple treaty, and the right of search 
which it granted, by inducing France to refuse to rat- 
ify that treaty, General Cass, our minister there, has 
received and deserved the thanks of the whole Amer- 
ican people. He demonstrated that such a right of 
search would be fatal to the free navigation of the 
ocean, and subject the commerce of the world to 
the supervision of British cruisers. But here is a 
treaty, containing all the obnoxious provisions of 
the quintuple treaty, in regard to the right of search, 
and others that are still more dangerous. That 
treaty was made, too, with nations differing in lan- 
guage, and in many other respects, from our own; 
and therefore more easily distinguishable than the 
people and vessels of Texas. As the flag is not 
to designate the national character of the vessel, 
how can these vessels of Texas, that are thus to be 
searched on suspicion, be distinguishable; and what is 
to prevent American vessels and American crews 
from being carried for condemnation within the 
ports of England? Recollect, also, that under this 
treaty, the cruisers of England and, indeed, 
the whole British navy, or any part of it, may be 
brought into the Gulf of Mexico, and stationed in 
the narrow pass, commanding the whole outlet of 
the gulf, and all the commerce to and from the 
Mississippi. To the right of search, under what- 
ever name or form, especially within our own seas, 
and upon our own coasts, we never have assented, 
and nerer can assent; but here, under pretext of search- 
ing the vessels of Texas, the navy of England,or any 
part of it, may occupy the only outlet of the gulf 
of Mexico, and all our vessels entering the gulf, or 
returning from the mouth of the Mississippi, must 
pass by and under the supervision of British 
cruisers, subject to seizure and detention, on sus- 
picion of being Texas vessels, concerned in the 
slave-trade. The British navy may thus also be 
quartered on the southern coast of Florida, and 
along the coasts of Cuba and Mexico, to seize upon 
Cuba whenever an opportunity presents. Such is 
the influence which it is thus proved, by official doc- 
uments. Great Britain has already obtained in 
Texas. It is here proved, that Great Britain "of- 
fered her mediation" to Texas to obtain peace with 
Mexico, and that she has already induced Texas to 
assume, conditionally, one million pounds sterling of 
the debt which Mexico owes in England, with 
all the accumulating interest from the 1st of 
January, 1835. A nation so feeble as Texas, 
which should owe so heavy a debt in Eng- 
land, with the payments secured by treaty, 
would be as completely within British influence as 
though already a British colony, especially when 
we consider the other most extraordinary privileges 
which she has already granted to England, inclu- 
ding the right of search. In the official proclamation 
of June 15"^ 1843, Presidcit Houston says: "An ofti- 
cal communication has been received at the depart- 
nt of State, from her Brilannic Majesty's charge 



patch he had received from her Majesty's charge 
d'affaires in Mexico, announcing to this government 
the fact that the President of Mexico would forth- 
with order a cessation of hostilities on his part; 
therefore, I, Sam. Houston, President of the Re- 
public of Texas, do hereby declare and proclaim 
that an armistice is established, to continue during 
the pendency of negotiations between the two coun- 
tries, and until due notice of an intention to resume 
hostilities (should such an intention hereafter be en- 
tertained by either party) shall have been formally 
announced through her Britannic Majesty''s charge 
d'affaires at the respective governments." Is not 
Texas already dependent upon Eiiglaiid, when Eng- 
land obtains for her an armistice, and the President 
of Texas announces that this will continue until its 
termination be announced by England? 

In the message of the President of Texas of the 
12th of December, 1843, he speaks of the "gen- 
erous and friendly disposition, and active and 
friendly offices of England." He speaks, also, of 
"injuries and indignities inflicted" by this govern- 
ment upon Texas, and declares "that reparation haa 
been demanded." Such is the wonderful advance 
in Texas of the influence of England, that she has 
succeeded in having it announced in an executive 
message to the people of Texas that England is their 
friend, and that we are their enemies. If all this had been 
predicted three years since, it would have been deem- 
ed incredible; and if Texas is not reannexed, she ia 
certain, within a few years more, to become first 
a commercial dependency, and then a colony, ia 
fact, if not in name, of England. When we regard 
the consequences which have already followed the 
mere apprehension of the refusal of reannexation, 
what wdl be the result in Texas when reannexation 
is positively and forever rejected? When this is 
done, and Texas is repulsed with contempt or in- 
difference, when her people are told, The flag of the 
Union shall never wave over you, go! — go where 
you may, to England, if you please, — who can doubt 
the result' To doubt is wilful blindness; and whilst 
we will have lost a most important territory, and an 
indispensable portion of the valley of the West, 
England will have gained a dependency first, and 
then a colony; and we shall awake from our slum- 
bers when, amid British rejoicings and the sound of 
British cannon, the flag of England shall w /e 
upon the coast and throughout the limits of^'* x;a3; 
and a monarchy rises up on our own cont^^ it and 
on our own borders, upon the grave of a rK^public. 
Yes, this is not a question merely between us cuid 
Texas, but a question between the advance of Brit- 
ish or American power; and that, too, within the 
very heart of the valley of the West. It is a ques- 
tion also between the advance of monarchy £md re- 
publicanism throtighout the fairest and most fertile 
portion of the American continent, and is one of the 
mighty movements in deciding the great que.stion 
between monarchy and republicanism, which of the 
two forms of government shall preponderate through- 
out the world. In the North, the flag of England, 
waves from the Atlantic to the Pacific over a 
region much more extensive than our own; and 
if it must float also for several thousand 
miles upon the banks of the tributaries of the 
great Mississippi, and along the gulf, from the 
Sabine to the Del Norte, we will be surrounded 
on all sides by England in America. In the gulf, 
her supremacy would be clear and absolute; and in 
the great interior, she would hang on the rear of 
Louisiana and Arkansas, and within two days* 



d'affaires near this government, founded upon a des- march of the Mississippi, while her forts vrould 



19 



stand, and her flag; would wave, for more than a thou- 
sand miles, on the banks of the Arkansas, the Sa- 
bine, and Red river, and in immediate contact with 
sixty thousand Indian warriors of our own, and 
half as many more of what would tlien be British 
Indians, within the present limits of Texas. If any 
doubt her course as to the Indians, let them refer to 
her policy in this respect during the reTolution and 
the last war, and they will find that the savage has 
always been her favorite ally, and that she has shed 
more American blood, by the aid of the tomahawk 
and scalping-knife, than she ever did in the field of 
fair and open conflict. And has she become more 
friendly to the American people? Look at her forts 
and her traders, occupying our own undoubted ter- 
ritory of Oregon; look at her press in England 
and Canada, teeming with abuse of our people, gov- 
ernment, and laws; look at her authors and tourists, 
from the more powerful and insidious assaults 
of Ahson, descending in the scale to the false- 
hoods and arrogance of Hall and Hamilton, and 
down yet lower to the kennel jests and vulgpr 
abuse of Marryatt and Dickens, industriously cir- 
• culated throughout all Eui'ope; and never was her 
hostility so deep and bitter, and never have her 
•efforts been so great to render us! odious to all the 
■world. The government of England is controlled 
by her aristocracy, the avowed enemies of republican 

fovernment, wherever it may exist. And never was 
Ingland endeavoring to advance more rapidly to 
■almost universal empire, on the ocean and the land. 
Her steamers, commanded by naval ofiicers, trav- 
erse nearly every coast and sea, whilst her empire 
■extends upon the land. In the East, the great and 
populous empires of Scinde and Aflghanistan have 
been virtually subjected to her sway, whilst yet 
another province now bleeds in the claws of the 
British lion. Though saturated with blood, and 
•gorged with power, she yet marches on her course 
to universal dominion; and here, upon our own 
borders, Texas is next to be her prey. By opium 
and powder, she; has subdued China, and seized 
many important positions on her coast. In Africa, 
Australasia, and the Isles of the Pacific, she has won- 
derfully increased her pov/er; and in Europe, she 
still holds the key of the Mediterranean. In- the 
Gulf of Mexico, she has already seized, in Hon- 
duras, large and extensive possessions, and most 
commanding positions, overlooking from the inte- 
rior the outlet of the gulf; while British Guiana, in 
;South America, stretching between the great Oronoco 
,and the mighty Amazon, places her in a position 
i(aided by her island of Trinidad, at the mouth of 
the Oronoco) to seize upon the outlet of those gi- 
gantic rivers. With her West India islands, from 
.Jamaica, south of Cuba, in a continuous chain to 
ithe most northern of the Bahamas, she is prepared 
ito seize the Florida pass, and the mouth of the Mis- 
isissippi; and let her add Texas, and the coast of 
Texas, and her command of the gulf v/ill be as ef- 
fectual as of the British channel. It v/ould be a 
British sea; and soon, ujion the shores of the gulf, 
her capital would open the great canal which mtist 
unite (at the isthmus) the Atlantic and Pacific, and 
give to her the key of both the coasts of America. 
Her possessions in the world are now n-arly quad- 
ruple the extent of our own; with more than ten- 
fold the population, apd more tlian oiu- area on our 
■own continent; and, while she aims openly at the 
possession of Oregon on the north, Texas on the 
west is to become hers by a policy less daring, but 
more certain in its resuls. We can yet rescue Tex- 
as from her grasp, imd, by reannexation, iiiaure at 



least the command of our own great sea, and the 
the outlet of our own great river. And shall we 
neglect the reacquisition, and throw Texas, and the 
command of the gulf, into the arms of England? 
Whoever would do so, is a monarchist, and prefers 
the advance of monarchical institutions over our 
own great valley: he is also an Englishman in feel- 
ings and principle, and would recolonize the Ameri- 
can States. 

And when Texas, by the refusal of reannexation, 
shall have fallen uito the arms of England, and the 
American people shall behold the result, let all who 
shall have aided in producing the dread catastrophe 
flee from the wrath of an indignant nation, which 
will burst forth like lava, and roll in fiery torrents 
over the political gi-aves of all who shall thus hatre 
contributed to the ruin of their country. And who 
would place England at New Orleans or the mouth 
of the Mississippi.' Who would place England on 
the banks of the Sabine, the Arkansas, and Red 
river? Who would place England along the coasts, 
and bays, and harbors, and in the great interior of 
Texas, and see her become a British colony, or — 
what is the same to us — a British commercial de- 
pendency? Could Texas be a power friendly to U3, 
even if not a British colony? Would our refused of 
reannexation secure her friendship? Would her ri- 
valry in our great staple insure her good will? 
Would the monopoly of her trade by England in- 
crease her attachment to ourselves? No. Let reax- 
nexation be now finally refused, and she becomes a 
foreign and a hostile power, with all her interests an- 
tagonistical to our own. Indeed, all history tells us 
that there is no friendship between foreign and con- 
tiguous nations, presenting so many points of col- 
lision, so many jarring interests, and such a rivalry 
in the sale and production of the same great sta- 
ple. 

Much is now urged in many of the States in favof 
of securing a home marlcet for our manufactures. 
Now here in Texas is a home market, that may be 
secured forever, of incalculable and rapidly increas- 
ir^ value — a market that is already lost to us for 
the present, as the table of exports demonstrates, 
and, all must admit, will be thrown, by the rejection 
of reannexation, into the possession of England; 
for, whether Texas does or does not become a 
British colony, it is certain that a treaty of recip- 
rocal free trade would secure to England the 
monopoly of her markets and commerce. The cot- 
ton of Texas would find a market free of duty in 
England, and her manufactures a market free of 
duty in Texas, whilst discriminating imposts on 
our vessels and cargoes would effectually exclude 
them from her ports. Although England might 
not, so long as her treaty with us remained uncan- 
celled, receive gratuitously the cotton of Texas free 
of duty; yet we concede the principle, and act upon 
it, that she may do it, not gratuitously, but for a 
consideration, viz: that Texas receives in return 
British manufactures free of duty; — and such we 
know is to be the n;st result of the final rejection of 
reannexation. Thus England would effectually mo- 
nopolize the commc'-ce and business of Texas, and 
in her harbors would float the flag of the English 
mercantile marine, soon to be the precursor of the 
next step in the drama of our disgrace and ruin; 
when the flag of England would float over a British 
province, carved out of the dismembered valley of 
the West. But if this last result were not certain; if 
it were only probable and contingent, — is it not wise 
and patriotic to arrest the danger, and remove all 
doubt by the sure preventive remedy of reanneX"; 



20 



iiuun? But if Texas should only become a British 
commercial dependency, and not a colony, the dan- 
ger to us, we have seen, would be nearly as great 
in the event of war, in the one case, as in the other. 
But even if not a dependency, we have seen she 
■would be too feeble to guard her rights as a neutral 
power; and that England, as she always heretofore 
has done in the case of neutrals, would seize upon 
. her soil, her coast, her harbors, her rivers, and our 
and her Indians, in her invasion of the valley of the 
West; and the only certain measure of defence and 
protection is the reaimexation of Texas. 

The defence of the coutitry and of all its parts 
against the probable occurrence of war, is one of the 
first and highest duties of this government. For 
this we build foris and arsenals, dry docks and 
jiavy-yards, supply arms and ordnance, and maiji- 
tain armies and navies at an annual expense 
of many millions of dollars; and for this we 
guard great cities and important bays and har- 
bors. From the organization of the govern- 
ment under the constitution, up to the latest period 
in 1843, for which detailed statements are given, 
-we have expended for the War Department, $374,- 
888,899, and for the Naval Department, |173,236,- 
569— being for both $548,125,408; for the civil list, 
|61,385, 373, for foreign intercourse, $35,051,772. 
miscellaneous, $61,578,168; — making for these three 
last items, $157,915,310; and for thepubUc debt, 
$451,749,003;— makingthe total expenditures $1,157,- 
789,781. Now if, to the expenditures for the de- 
fence of the country, as above given — $548,125,468 — 
we add that portion of the public debt which may 
be fairly estimated as having been incurred for the 
defence of the country, it would make $948,125,- 
468 expended for the defence of the country; and 
leave $209,664,313 expended for all other purposes. 
The defence of the country was the great object for 
which the govenjment was founded, and for this 
purpo.se, nearly all the moneys collected from the 
people have been expended; and yet, of this vast 
. amount, but $2,208,000 have been expended for for- 
tifications in Louisiana; and New Orleans and the 
mouth of the Mississippi are still to a great extent 
undefended. When we consider that nearly the 
■whole commerce of the West floats through this out- 
let, amounting now to $220,000,000 per annum, and 
rapidly augmenting every year, has not the West a 
right to demand a defence, complete and effectual, of 
this great river.' Now, Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay, 
in 1825 and 1827, in attempting to secure the 
reannexation of Texas, say: "the line of the 
Sabine approaches our gi-eat Western mart nearer 
than could be wished;" and in 1829, General Jack- 
son and Mr. Van Buren announce "the real neces- 
sity of the proposed acquisition," "as a guard for the 
western irontier, and the protection of JsTeio Orleans.'''' 
If, then, tlie defence of the country be one of the 
main objects and highest duties of this government, 
. and to accomplish which it has expended nearly all 
the moneys collected from the people, can it be un- 
constitutional or improper to acquire Texas, as a 
mere question of defence and protection, when we 
are assured, that the acquisition is a matter of ^Weal 
necessity,'''' ";>s a guard for the frontier and the protec- 
tion of New Orleans?" And surely this protection is as 
necessary n.iw as it was in 1825, 1827, 1829, 1833, 
and 18.J5; and New Orleans and Texas, and the 
frontier and t,he Sabine, stand preci-sely where they 
did at those periods. Indeed, I have now before 
me a letter of General Jackson, almost fresh from 
his penj in which he announces his opinion that 
the reannexation of Texas *'is essctUiid to tlie United 



States.'''' Although some of my countrymen may 
differ from me as to the exalted opinion which I 
entertain of the high civil qualifications of General 
Jackson, none will dispute his extraordinary milita- 
ry talents, and that no man living can know so well 
what is necessary to the protection of New Orleans, 
as its great and successful defender. If, then, the 
reannexation of Texas be more essential to the safe- 
ty and defence of New Orleans and the mouth of the 
Mississippi, than all the fortifications which could 
be, but have not been, and will not be, erected in 
that quarter, has not the West a right to demand, on 
this ground alone, the reacquisition of Texas? The 
money of the West, as the treasury reports above 
quoted demonstrate, is now freely disbursed, and 
has been expended by hundreds of millions, for tho 
defence of the Atlantic States; and will not those 
States feel it a duty and a pleasure to defend the 
West, and their own products, which float upon its 
mighty rivers, by the repossession of a territory 
which is essential for our security and welfare? To 
refuse the reannexation, is to refuse the defence of 
the West in the only way in v/hich that defence 
will be complete and effectual; for you may extend 
your fortifications along the whole coast of the 
gulf, and New Orleans, and the mouth of the Mis- 
sissippi, and the Florida pass will remain unde- 
fended, so long as Texas is in the possession of a 
foreign power, and we are open to attacks from the 
rear through that region. Fortifications, also, may 
sometimes be captured by a great superiority of guns 
and force, by squadrons upon the sea; and with a 
sufficient time and adequate force, if not by storm, 
by mine and siege, they may be always taken by 
assaults upon the land — even Gibraltar and theMoro 
castle not having always proved impregnable. But 
Texas, our own, and in the possession of the brave 
and practised marksmen of the West, would be a 
position where, against all attacks from the rear, 
every inch of gi-ound would be fiercely contested, 
and every advance would be marked by the blood 
of the invader; and if New Orleans should be inva- 
ded in other directions, our countrymen in Texas, 
over whom would then float the fliig of the Union, 
would rush to the rescue of their own great city, 
and, uniting with their bretliren in arms from other 
States of the same great Union, would re-enact, upon 
the banks of the Mississippi, the victories of San Ja- 
cinto and New Orleans. If, then, we are true to the 
West and Southwest, we will, if there were no other 
reasons, as a question of defence, reacquire the pos- 
session of Texas: or do patriotism, and love of the 
whole country, and of a.11 its parts, exist only in 
name? Does the American heart yet beat with all 
their glorious impulses? or are they mere idle words, 
fitted only to round oft' a period, or fill up an ad- 
dress? And have we reached that point in the scale 
of descending deg;eneracy, when the inquiry is, not 
what will best strengthen and defend the whole, but 
what will most effectually impair the strength, re- 
tard the growth, and weaken the security of the val- 
ley of the West? 

Let us now examine the effect of the reannexation 
of Texas on the whole country. The great interests 
of the Union, as exhibited in the census of 1840, are 
shown in the products of agriculture, of the mines and 
manufactures, of the forests and fisheries, of com- 
merce and navigation. I hereto append tables marked 
Nos. 2 and 3, compiled from the census of 1840, the 
first exhibiting the products that year of agriculture, 
mamifactures, commerce, mining, the forest and fish- 
eries; and the second showing the number of persons 
(hen employed in agriculture, majiufactures, com- 



21 



tnerce, mining, navigating the ocean, and internal nav- 
igation. I have also compiled from the official report 
of the Secretary of the Treasury in 1840, a table 
marked No. 4, representing for the year preceding, 
for each State, the imports and exports of each, 
distinguishing the domestic from the foreign exports; 
also the number of American vessels v/liich entered 
or cleared from each State; the American crews em- 
ployed; the foreign vessels which entered and cleared 
from each State; the vessels built in each State, and 
tonnage owned by each. Table No. 5, compiled 
from the same report, exhibits, for the same year, our 
exports to each of the countries of the world, distin- 
guishing the foreign and domestic exports, with the 
number of American vessels and foreign vessels em- 
ployed in our trade with each country, together with 
the imports from each, and the excess in our trade 
■with any of them, of exports to over imports from 
them. Table No. 6, compiled from the same re- 
port, presents all the exports of our own products 
that year to Texas, ranged under the heads of the 
products of agriculture, manufactures, forest and 
iisheries, distinguishing the articles thus exported, 
and their value. With these facts before us, which 
are all official, let us proceed to the examination of 
this great question. Our chief agricultural exports 
to Texas, as the table shows, were pork, ham, bacon, 
lard, beef, butter, cheese, flour, bread, and bread 
stuff, amounting to 1^163,641. In looking at the cen- 
sus of 1840, the population of each Stale and sec- 
tion, and the amount of these products in each State, 
we will find that the chief surplus of these products 
raised for sale beyond their limits, were in the mid- 
dle States, composed of New York, New Jersey, 
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, including 
he District of Columbia; and in the northwestern 
tStates, composed of Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio, In- 
diana, Illinois, and Michigan, including also Wis- 
consin and Iowa. The middle and northwestern 
Stiites derived, then, the principal profit in the sale of 
agricultural products to Texas. In the sale of do- 
mestic manufactures to Texas, the New England 
States came first; and next in their order, the middle, 
and the northwestern States; and in looking at the 
principal items of which these exported manufactures 
to Texas were composed, 1 find that of the surplus 
produced and sold to Texas, Massachusetts stood 
first, and Pennsylvania second. Next as to commerce, 
as connected with Texas, the middle States stood first, 
and then the New England and northwestern States; 
and here New York stood first, Massachusetts second, 
and next Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Ohio. But 
here we must remark the* special interest which 
Louisiana, through her great port of New Orleans, 
has in commerce as connected with Texas. The total 
products from commerce in Louisiana in 1840 were 7,- 
868,898, being one-tenth of that of the whole Union, 
and consequently the interest of New Orleans, as con- 
nected with the reannexation of Texas, must soon be 
measured by millions every year. The great city 
of New York, into which was received, in round 
numbers, one hundred millions of the one hundred 
and forty-three millions of all our imports in the 
year referred to, and one-third of the exports, has a 
vast and transcendent interest in this question; for it 
is, in truth, a question to be settled in our favor by 
the reannexation of Texas, whether New York or 
Liverpool shall command her commerce. Next as 
to the product.-? of mining, the middle States stand 
first; and next the Northwestern and New England 
States. And here Pennsylvania stands at the head 
of the list, having $17,666,146, or nearly one-half 
of the whole mining interest of the Union. Texas, 



having no mines of coal or iron, must become a vast 
consumer of the products of the mines of Pennsyl- 
vania. In cables, bar-iron, and nails, and other 
manufactures of our iron, Texas imported from us, 
in the year referred to, the value of $120,184. Now, 
of cast-iron, Pennsylvania produced, in 1840, 
98,395 tons, being largely more than one-third of 
the amount produced in the whole Union; and next 
came Ohio, Kentucky, New York, Virginia, Ten- 
nessee, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland. 
Of bar-iron, the amount produced in Pennsylvania 
was 87,244 tons, being verj'- nearly one-half of the 
whole produced in the Union; and next came New 
York, with 53,693 tons, or more than one-fourth of 
the whole; and then Tennessee, Maryland, Ohio, 
Nev/ Jersey, Massachu.setls, Virginia, Kentucky, 
and Connecticut. As connected v.'ith her'vast inter- 
ests in iron, must be considered also the coal itt 
Pennsylvania, not only as an article of sale abroad, 
but as consumed at home, in producing her iron; 
the number of tons thus consumed in 1840, of her 
own mines, being 355,903 tons, or very nearly one- 
fourth of that of the whole Union. Coal and iron 
are scattered in juxtaposition, throughout nearly the 
whole of Pennsylvania; and, as the markets for her 
iron are augmented, in the s.ame projiortion will in- 
crease the consumption of the coal used in pro- 
ducing that iron. Now, in 1840, the amount 
of anthracite coal produced in the whole Union 
was 863,489 tons; of which Pennsylvania pro- 
duced 859,686, or nearly the whole. Of bitu- 
minous coal, the total product of the Union 
was 27,603,191 bushels; of which Pennsylvania 
produced 11,620,654, or nepj-ly one-half the whole. 
Let us observe here, also, the remarkable fact, that 
the three adjacent States of Delaware, New Jersey, 
and New York, produced no coal, either anthracite 
or bituminous; and the future interest of Pennsyl- 
vania, as connected with that great article, becom.es 
of transcendent importance; and this, together with 
iron, and the manufactures connected with them, is 
to determine the value of her public works, and fix 
her future destiny. Up to a certain point of density, 
an agricultural State, with a rich soil, advances most 
rapidly; but when all the lands are cleared and cultiva- 
ted, tliis augmentation ceases. It is otherwise, how- 
ever, with a State possessing, throughout nearly every 
portion, inexhaustible mines of coal and iron, and 
wonderful adaptation to manufactures. There, when 
the soil has been fully cultivated, the development 
of the mines and manufactures, and the commerce 
and business connected with tliem, only fairly be- 
gins. Agriculture is limited by the number of acres; 
but for the pro4uct3 of mines and manufactures, 
such as Pennsylvania has within her boundaries, 
tliere is no other limit than the markets she can 
command; and this, is not merely theory, but is de- 
monstrated by the comparative progress of the va- 
rious nations of the world. Look, then, at the great 
amount — certainly not less than three hundred thou- 
sand dollars — of the products of the industry of 
Pennsylvania, consumed by Texas in her infancy, 
with a population of less than two hundred thou- 
sand in 18.39, and when those products were, to a 
considerable extent, excluded by the then existing 
tariff of Texas, and without which she certainly 
would then have consumed at least half a million of 
the products of the industry of Pennsylvania, had 
she been a sUte of the Union. But in ten years 
succeeding the reannexation, at the lowest rate of 
progress of population to the square mile of the 
other new States, she would contahi a population of 
two millions; and consequently consume five mil-^ 



22 



lions of the products of the industry of Pennsylva- 
nia, or one-fifth of all the surplus products of the 
mines and nianufcictures of that great State, sold 
beyond her limits in 1840. The principal products 
of Texas will be cotton and sugar, and besides the 
iron used in all agricultural implements, as well as 
in the manufactures consumed by an agricultural 
people, the use of iron in the cotton and sugar mills 
is very great. There all the great iron apparatus 
and machinory connected with the cotton gin and 
press, and the iron boilers and kettles and grates and 
furnaces used in the making of sugar, is greater than 
in any other employment. Together with this, is 
the steam engine, now universally employed in ma- 
3ring sugar, and being employed also in the ginning 
of cotton; and the iron that must be used by Texas, 
as she developes her resources, must be great indeed; 
and the question depending on the reannexation, is, 
whether Texas shall become a part of our home 
market, and whether England, or Pennsylvania and 
other States, shall supply her v/ants. There is 
another fact which must lead to a vast consumption 
of coal in Texas, and that is this: that from the 
hanks of the Red river to the coast of the gulf, ex- 
cepting only the cross timbers, and some other 
points, chiefly along her streams, Texas is almost 
exclusively a prairie country; and yet, (what is not 
very usual, except in northern Illinois, and some 
other portions of the West,) the soil of these prairies 
is inexhaustibly fertile. From these causes, wood 
and fuel must be scarce in Texas, and the coal 
of Petmsylvania and other States must find a niar^ 
ket there of almost incalculable value. 

We come next to the products of the forest: and 
here the middle States stand first, and then the New 
England and northwestern States. JVew York here 
stands first, and then, in their order, Maine, North 
Carolina, Pennsylvixnia, and Ohio. From Olean 
point on the AUegliany river, in New York, and 
down that stream through Pennsylvania, the lum- 
ber that now descends the Mississippi is very con- 
siderable, and of which, including the products 
from the forest from other quaiters of the Union, 
Texas already took from us, as the tal.'le shows, in 
1831), to the value of $157,474. Tlie product of tiie 
fisheries of the whole Union, in 1840, was i{ill,996,- 
008, of which New England produced 1^9,424,5.55, 
and the middle Stales $1,970,0.30. Of the products 
ofthc.se fisheries, Texas already took, in 1839, to 
the value of $43,426, which, as Texas has no fishe- 
ries, must be vastly augmented hereafter. By the 
treasury report of 1840, as exhibited in table No. 
4, the number of vessels built that year in the whole 
Union was 858; and here the New England States 
stood first, and then the middle and northwestern 
States; and Massai;husetts was first, and then, in 
their order, Maine, Maryland, New York, New 
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Connecticut. Now, 
by table No. 5, it is shown tliat the clearances of 
American vessels to Texas, from the United States, 
and of entries into the United States of Americim 
vessels from Texas, was, in the whole, in 1839, 
608, being two-thirds of the whole number of ves- 
sels built in that year in the United States; and our 
crews employed in navigating these American ves- 
.sels thus emjiloyed that year in our trai>Ie with 
Texas, were 4,727. The number of American ves- 
sels which cleared for Texas in 1839, was greater 
than to any one of fifty-seven out of -sixty-three of 
all the enumerated countries of the world. It was 
greater, also, than the whole ag-gregate number of 
our vessels which cleared that year for France, 
•Spain, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, 



Belgium, and Scotland combined. The same dis- 
proportion also exists as regards the crews, and al- 
so in the American vessels which entered the Uni- 
ted States from Texas, and the crews employed. 
The same tables demonstrate that, of the foreign 
vessels which entered the United States from Texas, 
in 1839, eighteen only, out of 4,105, entered our po/ta 
from Texas; and sixteen foreign vessels only clear- 
ed from the United States in that year for Texas, out 
of 4,036; showing that our trade with Texas, in 
1839, stood nearly upon the footing of our great 
coastwise trade, and was conducted almost exclusive- 
ly in American vessels. Having shown the large num- 
1 or of American crews concerned in the trade with 
Texas, and the great amount of wages they must 
have earned, let us now look at the States which- 
made these profits. By the census of 1840, the 
whole number of persons employed in navigating 
the ocean was 56,021, of w liich number 42,154 
were from New England, and 9,713 from the mid- 
dle States. And here Massachusetts stood first, 
and tiien Maine, and next, in their order, New 
York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Lou- 
isiana, and New.Tersey. In looking, also, to the States 
which owned the tonnage employed in this navigation , 
we find, by table No. 4, from the treasury report, 
lliat the New England States stood first, and then the 
middle States; and that the largest amount was own- 
ed by Massachusetts, and next, in their order, by 
Nev/ York, Maine, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Lou- 
isiana, Connecticut, and New Jersey. When we 
consider l^ie products of the fisheries consumed, and 
that will be consumed, by Texas, and the tonnage 
aiid crews employed in that trade, the reannexation 
nuist greatly augment our mercantile marine, and 
thus enable it to supply our navy, whenever ne- 
cessary, with an adequate number of skilful, brave, 
and hardy seamen, to defend, in war, our flag upon 
the sea. The number of persons employed in in- 
ternal navigati(.>n, (including our lakes, rivers, 
and canals,) by the census of 1840, was 33,076; more 
than one half being from the middle States, and next 
the States of the Northwest. The largest number 
was from New York, and next, in their order, 
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland and 
Missouri. Here, the States which have constructed 
great canals, on which are transported the exchange- 
able products of the Union, have a vast interest in 
the reannexation of Texas. Of these canals, the 
great works in New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, 
are already completed; and those of Indiana, and 
Illinois approach a completion, whilst Maryland 
and Virginia are pausing in the construction of their 
great works, the value of all of which would be 
greatly augmented, and business increased, by the re- 
annexation of Texas. And here let me say one 
word of the Old Dominion. She borders upon the 
Ohio and Atlantic, and when her great works shall 
unite their waters by one direct and continuous ca- 
nal, her connection with the West, and with Texas, 
as a ]iart of it, will be most intimate and important; 
and through the very heart of the State would float 
a vast amount of the commerce connected with the 
Ohio and the Mississippi. And she also has other 
great and peculiar interests connected with the re- 
nimexation of Texas. The amount of cast and bar 
iron furnished by her in 1840, was 24,696 tons; of 
bituminous coal, 10,622,345 bushels; and of domes- 
tic .salt, 1,745,618 bushels; of wheat, $3,345,783 in 
value; of the product of animals, $8,952,278; and of 
cotton manufactures $1,692,040; of all of which ar- 
ticles Texas, as the tiible of exports shows, is a very 
large consumer. 



23 



From the official treasury report of 1840, 1 give I tion, in many respectejas regards her trade, asater- 



the table No. 6, for the year commencing the 1st of 
October, 1838, and closing on the 30th of September, 
1839, showing our commerce that year with Texas, 
ajid all the other nations of the world. This shows 
that the total of our exports of domestic produce to 
Texas that year, was p, 379,065, and the total of 
all our exports to Texas that year, $1,687,082; that 
the imports the same year from Texas were §318,- 
116, leaving an excess in our favor, of exports 
over imports, of $1,368,966. Thus the extraordi- 
nary fact is exhiljitcd, that in the very infancy of 
her existence, the balance of trade in our favor with 
Texas, exceeded that of each of all the foreign coun- 
tries of the world — two only excejyted; and these two 
were colonies of an empire, our trade to the whole 
of which presented a balance of several millions 
against us. Texas then, that year, furnished a lar- 
o-er balance of exports over imports in our favor, 
than any other one of the empires of the icorld. The 
totality of our exports that year to Texas was great- 
er than to either Russia, Prussia, Sweden and Nor- 
way, Denmark, Belgium, Scotland, Ireland, Spain, 
Portugal, Italy, Sicily, or China. It was greater 
also tlian to each of fifty-six of the sixty-six enume- 
rated countries of tlie world. It was greater also 
than the aggregate of all our exports to Spain, Prus- 
sia, Denmark, Italy, Sweden and Norway, Portu- 
gal, New Grenada, Australasia, French Guiana, 
Sardinia, Morocco and Barbary States, and Peru 
ombined. 

By table No. 6, it appears that the exports of our 
domestic products in 1839 to Texas was — of the 
fisheries ^43,426; of the products of the forest 
P57,474; of the products of agriculture $205,860; 
uidofour manufactures $929,071. Now, by taljle 
No. 6 of the treasury report, the total exports, the 
ame year, of the products of the fisheries to all the 
ivorld, except Texas, was $1,864,543; and conse- 
quently the exports of the products of the fisheries 
o Texas, that year, amouted to about 2g per cent, of 
hose exports to all the rest of the world. The ex- 
ports of the products of the forest, that year, to all 
5ther countries, except Texas, by the same tal)le, 
*-as $5,607,085; consequently the export of those 
products, that year, to Texas, amounted to 3 per cent. 
)f those exports to all the rest of the world. Tlie 
;xports of our agricultural products, (excluding cot- 
on, rice, and tobacco,) that year, to all other coun- 
ries, except Texas, (and including molasses, inac- 
airately placed in the table of manufactures,) was 
Jll, 156,057; and consequently the exports of these 
products that year to Texas, amounted to more 
han 2 percent, of the agricultural exports that year 
o all the rest of the world. By the same taljle, the 
;xport of all our manufactures in 1839 (exclusive of 
^old and silver coin) to all other countries, except 
Texas, was $3,217,562. Now, the exports of our 
lomestic manufactures, that year, to Texas being 
^929,071, consequently Texas contsumed of our 

)OMESTIC MANUFACTURES, IN 1839, AN AMOUNT 
.ARGELY EXCEEDING ONE-FOURTH, AND NEARLY 
!;QUAL to one-third of OUR DOMESTIC MANUFAC- 
TURES EXPORTED ABROAD, AND CONSUMED THAT 
TEAR, BY AM. THE REST OF THE WORLD. Such are 

he astOKodhig results established by the official re- 
)ort \A' the Secretary of the Treasury, under date of 
Tune 25th, 1840, and to be found in vol. 8 Senate 
locuments for that year. No. 577. Such was our 
rade with Texas the year ending 30lh September, 
1839, before her independence was recognised by 
iny other power except by this republic, and before 
he had entered into commercial treaty with uny 



itory of the Union. Now, the treaty of amity and 
commerce between France and Texas was signed at 
Paris on the 25th of September, 1839; the treaty of 
amity and commerce between Holland and Texas 
was signed at the Hague on the 18th of September, 
1840; the treaty of commerce between Great Britain 
and Texas was signed at London on the 13th of 
November, 1840: all which have been long since 
ratified. Now, let us observe the effect upon our 
trade with Texas, of her introduction into the fami- 
ly of nations, by the recognition of her independence 
by other nations, and treaties of commerce with 
them; thus placing her towards us in the attitude of 
a forcio-n state. The resolution offered by me in the 
Senate of the United States for the recognition of 
the independence of Texas, was adopted on the 2d 
of March, 1837; and with that year commence the 
tables of our exports to Texas as a new empire, in- 
scribed on the books of the treasury. These tables, 
in the treasury reports of our exports to Texas, ex- 
hibit the following result: 

Our exports to^Texas in 1837 - $1,007,928 
1838 - 1,247,880 
« " 1839 - 1,687,082 

.. " 1840 - 1,218,271 

1841 - 808,296 
" 1842 - 406,929 

1843 - 190,604 
If our exports to Texas had augiTiented from 1839 
to 1843, as they had done from 1837 to 1839, and 
as they'must have done with her great increase of 
business and population, buf'for her being placed 
towards us, in the mean time, in the attitude 
of a foreifii state, they would have amounted, 
in 1843 to^ $3,047,000, instead of $190,000. Such 
has been the immense reduction in our exports to 
Texas created by her recognition by other nations, 
and commercial treaties with them, since 1839. But 
o-reat as were our exports to Texas m 1839, they 
were by no means so large as if she had then' been 
a State of the Union; for she then had, and still has, 
in force a tariff on imports, varying on most articles 
from 10 to 50 per cent., which must have prohibited 
somf^ of our exports there, and diminished others. 
Our tariff, also, did not embrace Texas, and .secure 
to our manufactures almost a monopoly in her sup- 
ply Had all these causes combined, as they would 
have done, had Texas been a State of the Union, our 
exports there of domestic articles must have reached, 
in 1843, $7,164,139, as I shall proceed to demon- 

'" The products of Louisiana, by tlie census of 1840, 
were $35,044,959, of which there was, in sugar and 
cotton', $15,476,783; and of this, there was of sugar, 
«i4 797 908; of which sugar, if we deduct $4«b,(83, 
as'consumed in the State, being more than double 
lier proportionate consumption, it would leave $15, 
000,000 of products raised and exported by Louisi- 
ana in 1840, when her population was 352,411; and 
Texas, producine; now in the same proportion to 
her present population of 200,000, would produce 
$19,886,360, and of exports for sale l^eyond Iict lim- 
its, $8,522,724; and deducting from this $l,258,58o, 
the proportion of her products employed m the pur- 
chase of foreign products for her use, would leave 
$7,164,139 of the products of Texas used in the pur- 
chase of articles from other States of the Union. 
But if reannexed to the Union, in ten years thereaf- 
ter, how much would she purchase of the products 
of other States of the Union.' If we allow Texas to 
increase in the same ratio to the square mile as the 
State of Louisiana after the first census succeeduifi 



)tli6r power; and therefore stood to us in the rela- the purchase from 1810 to 1820, the population, m 



24 



ten years, occupying the 318,000 square miles of | 
Texas, would exceed two millions; and the increase 
in many States has been much more rapid. But es- 
timated at two millions, Texas M'ould then, accord- 
ing to the above proportion, consume j^71,641,390 per 
annum of the products of other States, which con- 
sumption would be rapidly increasing every year; 
and her annual products then would be ^98,663,600; 
which, also, would be greatly and constantly aug- 
menting. Such is the wealth we are about cast from 
us, and the home market we are asked to abandon; 
for when we see that, by the failuree of reannex- 
atioii, our domestic exports hi 1843, to Texas, had 
fallen to ^140,320; and this, multiplied by ten, would 
give the consumption, at the end often years, of our 
products by Texas, $1,403,200, it makes an annual 
loss of a market for our products to the amount of 
170,238,190; and the loss would be greater, if Texas 
then, as a foreign State, consumed of our exports in pi o- 
porlion to then- consumjition by the rest of the world, 
which would reduce her purchase of our products to 
|230,000,and make our loss $71,411,390 per annum; 
and if we add to this the loss of revenue from the 
duties on imports, and the loss of the proceeds of the 
sales of her public lands, estimated at4170,139,153, 
which would all be ours by reannexation, the no- 
tional loss, by the rejection of Texas, must be esti- 
mated by hundreds of millions. Nor is it the trade 
of Texas only that would be lost, but that of Santa 
Fe, and all the northern States of Mexico, which, 
with the possession by us of Texas and the Del 
Norte, would become consumers of immense 
amounts of our manufactures and other pro- 
ducts, and would pay us to a great extent in 
silver, which is their great staple. Texas, also, 
has valuable mines of gold and silver, and 
this also would be one of her great exports, with 
which she would purchase our products; and thus, 
by her specie infused into our circulation, render our 
currency more secure, and subject us to less danger 
of bemg drained to too great an extent of gold and 
silver. Our exports of domestic products, by the 
treasury report of 1840, amounted to $103,533,896, 
deducting which from our whole products by the 
census of 1840,' would leave $959,600,845 of our 
own products, consumed that year by our own pop- 
ulation of 17,062,453; and the consumption of our 
domestic products, ($103,533,896,) by the population 
of the world, (900,000,000,) would make an average 
consumption of $56 in value of our products con- 
sumed by each one of our own people, and eleven 
cents in value of our products consumed on the aver- 
age by each person beyond our limits: and thus, it 
appears that one person within our limits consumes 
as much of our own products as 509 persons beyond 
our limits; thus proving the wonderful difference, as 
regards the consumption of tile products of the 
Union, between Texas now and in all time to come, 
as a foreign country, or as a pari of the Union. 
When we reflect, also, that the products of Texas 
are chiefly of those articles among the few which 
find a market abroad, it furnishes her with the means 
to purchase, with the proceeds of those exports, the 
surplus products of other States, which do not jiro- 
duce these exports; and therefore, the accession of 
such a country to the Union is vastly more import- 
ant to the great manufacturing interest than if Texas 
did not raise such exports, but became a rival pro- 
ducer of our own domestic manufactures. Hence 
it must be obvious, independent of the proof here 
exhibited, that the New England States, the middle 
and northwestern States, would derive the principal 
profit from the reannexation of Texas. Pennsylva- 
nia standing first, and then Massachusetts and New 



York; and of the cities, Pittsburg, Cincinnati, aad 
New Orleans, Boiston, New York, Baltimore, and 
Philadelphia. The city which will derive the great- 
est advantage, in proportion to her population, un- 
doubtedly will be Pittsburg, not only from the won- 
derful extent and variety of her manufactures, but 
also from her position. The same steamboat, con- 
structed by her skilful workmen, which starts from 
Pittsburg, at the head of the Ohio, freighted with 
her manufactures, can ascend the Red river for ma- 
ny hundred miles, into one of the most fer- 
tile regions of Texas, and retui'n to the 
iron city with a cargo of cotton, there to be 
manufactured for sale in Texas, and other sections 
of the Union. The steamboats of Pittsburg, also, 
can descend the Mississippi to the gulf, and, coast- 
ing along its shores to Galveston, Matagorda, and 
the other ports of Texns, there dispose of their car- 
goes of manufactures, and bring back the cotton 
and sugar of Texas, and also the gold and silver, 
which will be furnished by her mines in great abun- 
dance, whenever they are worked v/ith sufficient 
skill and capitah Pittsburg is a great loestern city; 
and whether she shall soon be the greatest manufac- 
turing city of the world, depends upon the markets 
of the west, and especially on the market of Texas 
— which, we have seen, can alone be secured by re- 
annexation, and, without it, must be lost forever. 
And shall Pittsburg complain that new States are to 
be added in the West' Why, the new States of 
the West have made Pittsburg all that she is, and 
all that she ever will be; and each addition to their 
number will only still more rapidly augment her 
markets, her business, her wealth, and population. 
Nor can Pittsburg advance withoat the correspond- 
ent improvement of Philadelphia, and of all the 
great interior of Pennsylvania, throughout the 
whole line of internal communication that binds to- 
gether the two great cities of the Keystone State. 
While it is true that New England, and the middle and 
northwestern States, will derive the greatest profit 
directly from the reannexation of Texas, the South 
and Southwest, from the augmentation of the wealth 
and business of the North — produced, not by re- 
strictions on the South and Southwest, but in recip- 
rocal free trade with Texas and all the Slates — will 
then also find in New England, and in the middle 
and northwestern States, a larger and more able 
ynirchaser, and more extensive and better markets 
for all their exports. Indeed, so great will be the 
mutual benefits, from this measure, that I do not 
hesitate to record the opinion that, in ten years suc- 
ceeding the reannexation, with just and fair legisla- 
tion, there will be more American cotton then man- 
ufactured in this Union than now is, or then will be, 
in England; and we shall begin to look to the prices 
current of our own cities to regulate the market, and . 
not to England, to raise or depress, at her pleasure, 
the value of the great American staple. The North ' 
wants more markets at home for the products of her' 
industry, and attempts to secure those of the South 
and Southwest by the tariff; while they complain 
that this most certainly depresses the price of their 
great staple, and as surely deprives them of the 
means of purchasing the products and manufactures 
of the North. But, upon grounds undisputed by 
the friends or opponents of a tariff, Texas must fur- ' 
nish, as a part of the Union, in any event, a vast' 
market for many of its products, upon the princijjle 
of reciprocal free trade among the States — that great 
principle which led to the adoption of the constitu-' 
tion, and which has done more than all other causes 
combined to advance our interest. 
Upon the rejection of reannexation, it will be uJ- 



25 



terly impossible to prevent the smuggling of British 
and foreign goods, to an almost incalculable extent, 
tlirough Texas into the Union, thus not only de- 

E riving our manufacturers of the markets of Texas, 
ut also of the markets of the whole valley of the 
West. This difficulty is already experienced to a 
small extent in Canada, although we have mostly a 
dense population upon our side, and located in a 
region of the north, generally highly favorable to 
the tariff, and deeply interested, as they suppose, in 
detecting and preventing smuggling. But the diffi- 
culty in Texas will be far greater. There, the line 
of division is, first the Sabine — a very narrow stream, 
far different form the lakes of the North, and the great 
St. Lawrence — as a boundary; and from the Sabine, 
for a long distance, a mere geographical line to the 
Red river, along that stream for many hundred 
miles, and then another long geographical line to 
the Arkansas, and thence many hundred miles along 
that stream to its source, and thence to latitude 42. 
Here is a boundary of fifteen hundred miles, and a 
very large portion of it mere geographical lines, run- 
ning through the very centre of the great valley of 
the Mississippi. Could an army of revenue officers, 
even if all were honest and above temptatioi!, guard 
such a distance, and such a frontier, against the 
smuggler, and that, too, in the midst of a popula- 
tion on both sides deeply hostile to the tariff; many 
of them regarding it as unconstitutional, and there- 
fore that it is right, in their judgment, to evade its 
operation? These difficulties were foreseen by Mr. 
Van Buren, and constitute a strong argument, urged 
by him in his despatch of 1829, in favor of the re- 
annexation of Texas. He there urges the difficulty 
of establishing a proper custom-house at the mouth 
of the Sabine, without which, he says, even in that 
direction, "it is impossible to prevent that frontier 
from becoming the seat of an extensive system of 
SMUGGLING." It is true, that a custom-house on our 
side of the Sabine, and with numerous and faithful 
officers, might duninish smuggling in that direction; 
but as by the treaty, noiv in force with Texas, all ves- 
sels entering Texas through the Sabine, must pass 
unmolested, and land their cargoes at any point on 
the Sabine, could smuggling be prevented in that di- 
rection.' 

But if smuggling could be prevented through the 
Sabine, there is the harbor of Galveston, entirely in 
Texas, and with a depth equal to that at the mouth 
of the Mississippi; and there is the river Trinity 
(emptying into that harbor) also entirely in Texas, 
and navigable to a point not far from Red river, 
within the boundaries of Texas; and up and through 
these streams into Arkansas and Louisiana, and 
the valley of the West, it would be utterly impos- 
sible to prevent smuggling< The duties upon many 
articles under our present tai'iff, range from 50 to 250 
per cent. Upon India cotton bagging they amount 
to 250 per cent, on the foreign price current; on 
many articles of iron to 100 per cent.; and upon 
glass, and nearly all low-priced goods affected by 
the minimum principle, there are very high duties. 
With these articles introduced into Texas free of 
duty, can they be kept but of the adjacent States, 
when the lacilities and temptation to smuggling will 
be so very great.' This smuggling will be encouraged 
by the manufacturers of England, and their agents 
and merchants in Texas, whose cities would be 
built up as the entrepots of such a traffic. What 
English manufacturers will do, by an organized sys- 
tem of fraudulent invoices and perjury, to evadq our 
duties, was proved in the late investigation in New 
York. British courts, also, have refused to notice 
effences against oui- revenue laws; and the high au- 



thority of Sir William Blackstone haa been invoked, 
where he says, in reference to this subject, "These 
prohibitory laws do not make the transgression a 
moral offence, or sin: the only obligation in coti- 
science is to submit to the penalty if levied.''^ And 
such is the opinion of thousands of our country- 
men; and many thousand more believe that the pres- 
ent tariff is unconstitutional, and hence that it is of 
no force or validity, and tliat it is not criminal to 
disregard its provisions. However strong, then, 
might be my opposition to smuggling, there are 
hundreds of thousands, both in England and Amer- 
ica, v/ho believe it is not criminal; and their number 
will be greatly augmented, when goods, free of 
duty, may be introduced into Texas, and pre- 
miums, under our tariff, from 50 to 250 per cent, 
are offered, to induce the illicit traffic. Most cer- 
tainly then, the refusal of reannexation will repeal 
THE TARIFF, by the substitution of smuggled goods 
in place of American manufactures; the fair trader 
will be undersold and driven out of the market by 
the illicit traffic and smuggling become almost uni- 
versal, and the commerce of the country transferred 
from New York and the ports of the North, to 
the free ports of Texas. This disregard of the laws 
would bring the government into contempt, and 
finally endanger the Union, if, indeed, it did not in- 
duce a degeneracy and demoralization, always fatal to 
the pei'manence of free institutions. Nor is it ne- 
cessary, to effect these results, that Texas should 
become a colony, or even a commercial dependency 
of England; nor yet that there should be between 
these powers a treaty of reciprocal free trade. 
Texas (there' being no separate States, and but one 
government to support, and having no expense of 
any revenue system) may maintain her single gov- 
ernment at an annual expense of ^300, OOO, which 
sum she can, as is now clearly ascertained, derive 
from the sales of her magnificent pui)lic domain, em- 
bracing, as we have seen, 130,000,000 of acre_s. 
Let it be known, then, and proclaimed as a certain 
truth, and as a result which can never hereafter he 
changed or recalled, that, upon the refusal of reannex- 
ation, now and in all time to come, the tariff, as 
A practical" measure, falls wholly and forever; 
and we shall thereafter be compelled to resort to 
direct taxes to support the government. Desira- 
ble as such a result (the overthrow not only of a pro- 
tective, but even of a revenue tariff, and the substi- 
tution of direct taxation) might be to many in the 
South and Southwest, yet the dreadful consequences 
which would flow from this illicit traffic to the 
cause of morals, of the Union, and of free govern- 
ment, cannot be contemplated without horror and 
dismay. 

Having now, gentlemen, fully replied to your 
communication, let me assure you that I shall per- 
severe in the use of all honorable means to accom- 
plish this great measure, so well calculated to ad- 
vance the interests and secure the perpetuity of the 
American Union. That Union, and all its parts, 
(for they are all a portion of our common country,) 
I love with the intensity of filial aflection; and 
never could my heart conceive, or my hand be 
raised to execute, any project which could effect its 
overthrow. I have ever regarded the dissolution of 
this Union as a calamity equal to a second fall of 
mankind — not, it is true, introducing, like the first, 
sin and death into the world, but greatly augmenting 
all their direful influences. Such an event it would 
not be my wish to survive, to behold or participate 
in the scenes which would follow; and, among the 
reasons wliich induce me to advocate so warmly the 
reannexation of Texas, is the deep convistion, long 



26 



entertained, that this great measure is essential to 
the security of the South, the defence of tlie West, 
and highly conducive to the welfare and perpetuity 
of the whole Union. As regards the division of 
Texas into States, to which you refer, it seems to 
me most wise first to get the territory; and, when 
■we have rescued it from England, and secured it to 
ourselves, its future disposition must then be deter- 
mined by the joint action of both Houses of Con- 
gress; which, from their organization, will decide 
all these questions in that spirit of justice and equity 
in which the constitution was framed, and all its 
powers should be administered. I perceive that 
your meeting and your committee was composed of 
both the great parties which divide the country, and 
that you propose that the reannexation of Texas 



should not be made a sectional or a party questionv 
Most fortunate would be such a result; for this is, 
indeed, a great question of national interests, too 
large and cornprcliensive to embrace any party or 
section less than the whole American people. 

Accept, gentlemen of the committee, for your- 
selves, and that portion of the people of the great 
and patriotic Commonwealth of Kentucky whom 
you represent on this occasion, and in reply to whose 
call upon me this answer has been given, the assu- 
rances of the respect and consideration of 
Your fellow-citizen, 

R. J. WALKER. 
To Messrs. Geo. N. Sanders, Henry RAMEY,jr.^ 
- F. Bledsoe, W. B. Lindsay, James P. Cox, &c.,. 

Committee. 



TABLES APPENDED TO MR. WALKER'S LETTER. 

Table No. 1, compiled from census of 1840, of deaf and dumb, blind, idiots, and insane. 



iStates and Terri- 
tories. 



Maine 

New Hampshire 

Massachusetts 

Rhode Island 

Connecticut - 

Vermont 

New York - 

New Jersey - 

Pennsylvania 

Ohio 

Indiana 

Illinois 

Michigan 

Wisconsin - 

Iowa 



Delaware 

Maryland - 

Virginia 

North Carolina 

South Carolina 

Georgia 

Alabama 

Mississippi - 

Louisiana - 

Tennessee - 

Kentucky - 

Missouri 

Arkansas 

Florida 

Distiicl of Columbia 



500,438 

284,036 

729,030 

105,587 

301,856 

291,218 

2,378,890 

35l,5«8 

1,670,115 

1,502,12-2 

678,69,s 

472,254 

211,560 

30,749 

42,924 



9,557,055 



58,561 
317,717 

740, %S 

484,870 

259,084 

407,695 

335,lH.i 

179,071 

158,457 

640,627 

590,25:3 

323,888 

77,174 

27,91 

30,657 



4,632,053 



14,189,108 



O 



1,355 
538 

8,669 
3,243 

8,15;) 

730 

50,031 

21,718 

47,918 

17,345 

7,168 

3,929 

707 

• 196 

188 



171,892 



19,524 
151,515 

498,829 

268,549 

335,314 

283,697 

255,57! 

196,577 

193,954 

188,583 

189,. 575 

59, 8M 

20,400 

26,534 

13,155 



2,701,56( 



2,873,4.581 6,68; 



White. 



222 
181 
283 

74 
309 
135 
1 ,039 
164 
781 
559 
297 
155 

31 
5 

10 



4,233 



45 

178 

443 

280 

140 

193 

173 

64 

42 

291 

400 

126 

40 

14 

8 



2,449 



180 

153 

308 

63 

143 

101 

875 

126 

540 

372 

135 

66 

25 

9 

3 



3,219 



15 

165 

421 

223 

133 

136 

113 

43 

37 

255 

236 

82 

26 

9 

6 



1,805 



5,024 



«^ 



537 
486 

1,071 
203 
498 
39H 

2,146 
3f;9 

1,946 

1 , 195 

487 

213 

39 



9,599 



52 

387 

1 ,052 

580 

376 

294 

232 

116 

5' 

699 

795 

202 

45 

10 

14 



4,909 



14,508 



Colored. 



262 



68 

150 

74 

78 

64 

53 

28 

17 

67 

77 

27 

2 

2 

4 



715 



333 



18 

101 

466 

167 

*1.56 

151 

96 

69 

36 

99 

141 

42 

8 

10 

9 



1,559 



94 
19 

200 
13 
44 
13 

194 
73 

187 

165 

75 

79 

26 

3 

4 



1,191 



28 

149 

381 

231 

137 

134 

125 

82 

45 

162 

180 

6S 

21 

12 



1,734 



977 1,892 2,926 5,806 






117 

31 

239 

17 

65 

17 

353 

114 

334 

231 

109 

113 

32 

3 

11 



1,786 



54 

318 

997 

462 

371 

349 

274 

179 

98 

328 

398 

137 

31 

24 

20 



4,020 



a 

« s 

o =» 

to 3 



24,556 



13,507 



27 



Taile No. 2, showing the annual products of each State, according to census of 1840. 









Value of annual products from 






Slates an'd Terri- 






tories. 


















Agricul- 


Manufac- 


Com- 


Mining. 


Forest. 


Fisheries. 


Total. 




ture. 


tures, 


merce. 












Dollars. 


Dollars. 


Dollars. 


Dollars. 


Dollars. 


Dollars. 


Dollars. 


Maine 


15,856,270 


5,615,303 


1,505,380 


327,376 


1,877,663 


1,280,713 


26,462,705 


New Hampshire 


11,377,752 


6,545,811 


1,001,533 


88,373 


449,861 


92,811 


19,556,141 


Vermont - 


17,879,155 


5,685,425 


758,899 


389,488 


430,224 


_ 


25,143,191 


Massachusetts - 


16,005,6-27 


43,518,057 


7,004,691 


2,020,572 


377,354 


6,483,996 


75,470,297 


Rhode Island 


2,199,309 


8,640,626 


1,294,950 


162,410 


44,610 


659,312 


13,001,223 


Connecticut 


11,371,776 


12,778,963 


1,963,281 


820,419 


181,575 


907,723 


28,023,737 


New England S. 


74,749,889 


82,784,185 


13,528,740 


3,808,638 


3,361,287 


9,424,555 


187,657,294 


New York 


108,275,281 


47,454,514 


24,311,715 


7,408,070 


5,040,781 


1,316,072 


193,806,433 


New Jersey 


16,209,853 


10,696,257 


1,206,929 


1,073,921 


361,326 


124,140 


29,672,426 


Pennsylvania 


68,180,924 


33,354,279 


10,593,368 


17,666,146 


1,203,578 


35,360 


131,033,655 


Delaware 


3,198,440 


1,538,879 


266,257 


54,555 


13,119 


181,285 


5,252,535 


Maryland 


17,586,720 


6,212,677 


3,499,087 


1,056,210 


241,194 


225,773 


28,821,661 


Dist, of Columbia 


176,942 


904,526 


802,725 


- 


- 


87,400 


1,971,593 


Middle States - 


213,628,160 


100,161,132 


40,680,081 


27,258,902 


6,859,998 


1,970,030 


390,558,303 


Virginia - 


59,085,821 


8,349,218 


5,299,451 


3,321,629 


617,760 


95,173 


76,769,053 


North Carolina - 


26,975,831 


2,053,697 


1,322,284 


372,486 


1,446,108 


251,792 


32,422,198 


outh Carolina - 


21,553,691 


2,248,915 


2,632,421 


187,608 


549,626 


1,275 


27,173,536 


Georgia - 


31,468,271 


1,953,950 


2,248,488 


191,631 


117,439 


584 


35,980,363 


Florida - 


1,834,237 


434,544 


464,637 


2,700 


27,350 


213,219 


2,976,687 


Southern States 


140,917,851 


15,040,324 


11,967,281 


4,076,054 


2,758,283 


562,043 


175,321,836 


Alabama 


24,696,513 


1,732,770 


2,273,267 


♦ 81,310 


177,465 




28,961,325 


Mississippi 


26,494,565 


1,585,790 


1,453,686 


_ 


205,297 


_ 


29,739,338 


Louisiana 


22,851,375 


4,087,655 


7,868,898 


163,280 


71,751 


_ 


35,044,959 


Arkansas 


5,086,757 


1,145,309 


420,635 


18,225 


217,469 




6,888,395 


Tennessee 


31,660,180 


2,477,193 


2,239,478 


1,371,331 


225,179 


- 


37,973,360 


Southwestern S. 


110,789,390 


11,028,717 


14,255,964 


1,636,146 


897,161 


- 


138,607,378 


Missouri - 


10,484,263 


2,360,708 


2,349,245 


187,669 


448,559 




15,830,444 


Kentucky 


29,226,545 


5,092,353 


2,580,575 


1,539,919 


184,799 


_ 


38,624,191 


Ohio 


37,802,001 


14,588,091 


8,050,316 


2,442,682 


1,013.063 


10,525 


63,906,678 


Indiana - 


17,247,743 


3,676,705 


1,866,155 


661), 836 


80,000 


1,192 


23,532,631 


Illinois - 


13,701,466 


3,243,981 


1,493,425 


293,272 


249,841 


^ 


18,981,985 


Michigan 


4,502,889 


1,376,249 


622,822 


56,790 


467,540 




7,020,390 


Wisconsin 


568,105 


304,695 


189,957 


384,603 


430,580 


27,663 


1,905,600 


Iowa 


769,295 


179,087 


136,525 


13,250 


83,949 


- 


1,132,106 


Northwestern S. 


114,302,307 


30,821,866 


17,289,020 


5,579,011 


2,958,331 


39,380 


170,989,925 


Total 


654,387,507 239,836,224 


79,721,086 


42,358,761 


16,835,060 


11,996,008 


1,063,134,736 



28 



'Tiible No. 3, showing the number oj persons engaged in mining, agriculture, comnsrce, manufactures 
navigating the ocean, and internal navigation. 



States and Territories, 


Mining. 


Agriculture. 


Commerce. 


Manufac- 
tures 


Navigating 
the ocean. 


Internal 
navigation. 


Maine - 


36 


101,630 


2,921 


21,879 


10,091 


539 


New Hampshire 


13 


77,949 


1,379 


17,826 


452 


198 


Yermont 


77 


73,150 


1,303 


13,174 


41 


146 


Massachusetts - 


499 


87,837 


8,063 


85,176 


27,153 


372 


Rhode Island - 


35 


16,617 


1,348 


21,271 


1,717 


228 


Connecticut 


151 


56,955 


2,743 


27,932 


2,700 


431 


New England States 


811 


414,138 


17,757 


187,258 


42,151 


1,914 


New Yurk 


1,898 


455,954 


28,468 


173,193 


5,511 


10,167 


New Jersey 


26S 


56,701 


2,283 


27,004 


1,143 


1,625 


Pennsylvania - 


4,603 


207,533 


15,338 


105,883 


1,815 


3,951 


Delaware 


5 


16,015 


467 


4,060 


401 


235 


Maiyland 


320 


72,046 


3,281 


21, 529 


717 


1,528 


District of Columbia - 


- 


384 


240 


2,278 


126 


80 


Middle States 


7,092 


808,633 


50,077 


333,947 


9,713 


17,586 


Virginia 


1,995 


318,771 


6,361 


54,147 


682 


3,952 


North Carolina 


589 


217,095 


1,734 


14,322 


327 


379 


Sou:h Carolina 


51 


198,363 


1,958 


10,325 


381 


348 


Georgia 


574 


209,383 


2,428 


7,984 


262 


35^ 


'Florida 


1 


12,117 


481 


1,177 


435 


lis 


Southern States 


3,210 


955,729 


12,962 


87,955 


1,987 


4,149 


Alabama 


96 


177,439 


2,212 


7,195 


256 


758 


Mississippi 


14 


139,724 


1,303 


4,151 


33 


100 


Louisiana 


1 


79,289. 


8,549 


7,565 


1,322 


663 


Arkansas 


41 


26,355 


215 


1,173 


3 


39 


Tennessee 


103 


227,739 


2,217 


17,815 


55 


303 


Southwestern States 


• 255 


650,546 


14,496 


37,899 


1,669 


1,861 


Missouri 


742 


92,408 


2,522 


11,100 


39 


1,885 


Kentucky- 


331 


197,738 


3,448 


23,217 


44 


968 


Ohio - . - 


704 


272,579 


9,201 


66,265 


212 


3,333 


Indiana 


233 


148,806 


3,076 


20,. 590 


89 


627 


Illinjuis - - . 


782 


105,337 


2,5fl6 


13,185 


63 


310 


Michigan 


40 


56,521 


728 


6,890 


24 


166 


Wisconsin 


794 


7,017 


479 


1,814 


14 


209 


Iowa - - . 


217 


10,469 


355 


1,629 


13 


78 


Northwestern States 


3,843 


890,905 


22,315 


144,690 


498 


7,566 


Total - 


15,211 


3,719,951 


117,607 


791,749 


56,021 


33,076 



29 



paiiodra aonp 
-oad uSpjoj puB 
DTjsauiop JO lEJOJ, 



lO "* to in Tjt ?D CTl 05 ift O -< t^ ^ to to M Oi l--Tj<M ift «0 

T3< 05 00 o i3* (M o o ■* to in i> — oj ■<* Tt< -H I— 00 !> e*5 ao 

o"--"fo"--s"vn fo"ac"oo en oo to c<^ <^j> o o co~ — "vfTso «ri ^ 

cnQCOit-^ccootDa-. oj t^oooc^oolro ceo foeo 



tnojj pajjodxa 



1— c O O to Tti US •>* 

in CO CO oj o •* o 
o o to -^ 1— no (N 



O) W C» f>» ■* 
t^ O t- CI o 

M t- t- oo 



r^ l> 10 05 I — O — ^ IMOCO 

_i -^ t^ .-> in to 

«& l^ O i-H (M 



to I I in 1 1 



raojj psjjodxa 
aonpojd oijiatuoQ 



■»*<Tf<tOvf>QCtOin-^— 'OOiO'*Tt<(MfOO 

CO — • 00 >n O 0-1 O CO — QO QC tC C? CO CJ -* in 
■«*<OQOTfiuOC^O-^OJtO^OTtiOOO-^— " 



to r*<CO 
CO in (?» 

OQO t^ 



vn^jt 
o o 

CO o 



QO"*coovncotoaoQOcocot-cotoaDoaD 



in o in o 



CO -H 

CO o 



i-l 1-1 CO 



•ajBig IJDB3 P3J91II3 



^OQOOCOOCQDQO 

oocotoQooo— iin-^ 
vntMCNi^coinoo in 

(m" 1-1 (y( -h i-H o» ■^ 



1 to C* to O CO Tt< o 



CO o 

—1 o 
00 Ol 



!— I rH in 



•aiBjg 

ipsa UIOJJ P9J133P 



00 o in r^ o to CT -^ o -^ -- co in co co t- 
inini-'*oo-'*— <QOto cn'«*< — ctorf<t^ 

CO '- 0« OJ -- t^ to -H f-t I rf CO 00 C* CN (M O 



in 00- 
to o 
»n o< 



to in 
in in 
rt o 



•91Blg qOB3 

UT pauAvo aSBuuojL. 



ln:o•«i<r^>••9<co■^oooco'*<c^^to — ■^fNco 

OO'NC0r-l--^^Tr'inCO-3>QDO — o^ 

c*'MSJcoinc5-*t-coc;o>— "Ooothoc^ 



to in lO o o o> in 

l^ fN O* ■* 03 r- CO 

o o — " c* o to t^ 



•aiBlg IJDG9 



o t^ to o in to o* o to O'* o in -"^r- ^h-^-. 
■* I 'a* CO o r» Tt< -H Q) .— I r-i cj I ,-( Tji 1-1 



-H T*) -. CO i> CO in 



•aiBjg 
qDB9 raojj paJEap 
spssaA Uoiajo^ 



oooinointorMooo --torM-<e<c<»--o rt<to ooo 

in -H 00 00 C* CO O -^ CO «^ rji o rf — < ^ O 00 1^ t^o 

Tti i-cOi-lrt!0 CO ICO 1-1 CO C* >-i 0* to I I .-I I 



•a}B5g 
qoBa raojj p3jB3[a 
siassaA TiBouarav 



•aiBiS ^^^9 pajaj 
-ua s[ass3A uSiaioj 



o o to to in ' 



•aiEig qoBa pajajna 
sjassaA UBOuauiv 



■-i----3C3t^OtCOeO 

in c« 00 c* CO c* o in 

CO 1-1 CJ ^ -^ O^ -Ti 



ocot^cototoQO eoTjt coo 

icosqooinTj<inc<> oto i |tj<oo 

CO 1-1 1—1 M ^ r-t 



'ajBig 
qoBa 0)at sijodmi 



■^i^cocot^— 'ODCOin 
0)0— lOJinocooo— I 



in -H rN CO J> t- --I ei o o to 1-1 CO ■^ 

00 — tOCOI^OOO TjiOOOOTfi.'MOtO 

oj in Tt (?» o o o» at oi m rt (^» 00 o 



c*--coin'>>tof;j'^o 
00 in — 00 — "* 00 in 

Oi Tl* CO to 'S* 00 o 



I in o? CO o toco in ■^ o o tooto 

(OCO-Hr>jQO — O tOi— 11-1 l^J^'^ 
O"O0*OrJ<00 O .-iCT 



g a 



.53 2 



(O G -^ >,"2 



52 



O •^: 



t3 ^ 4) 



H «-■ S2 > "■''^ ° 



w o 






.2 0! 



J2S «-J (fl 






_, CO V} a> 



5 i:S _ &*« 

•'O.™ S w S O « bflRj 3 " K " c 



30 



^ >■ i2 

O O i-i 






00 Oi 
<X> CN 



in oto fo to o 
o CO lO urs iD Tj* 
050 -^ o oico 

yTo — in — o 
1-- 00 »n t^ CO in 

--•OJ 



to 3:m 00 
t- o t^o 

i^a> — 00 

>— 1 O I>ffl0 

to Tj< 



C0 9> 



rj< (u ■<*< 00 J> -H o (M to -g; 00 -H to M CTs 00 CO C5 c* 03 in i^ to ■«*< o-HQo ecQo»ni>co 

Ol — 00 >0 03 to OeO 03 00 O O -^QOQD l^ -^ lO ift 35 — < G<J Tji ■r*< in t^ 0» OlP-iftr-T* 

00_-* tO-q<_05_r-_— t--_-H^(N_0_l--^t--<_tD_^— _05_ O — cO(MO— co rjSooP- i-Osl^^S 

lOincrsojT^CMOiinooooos'* icoini— iTj<rj<inQo looc^ci" i e«^i>"to"to"or 

lOOtoooTfoiap-^otpiniQovcM -^ro-^iSJ-^iOin — ii-o tocr. oaSS 

•-< oj i-i p-i ovtor- (Niri-^ooio 



r^ Tfl — to O ■«* 00 05 1-^ 



^^ m CO 
O u ti 

^s s 



toeoc«5« 

Tjl -^ O -< 

c* 00 in ■^i 



-H in r- 

— « ro to 
00 in o 



MC01>tOOinQOa3rt<tOt005(Min'!j<0'<*OOC*StO'-<c«5QDTj< 

oin— 1-^ — coQO— <coo300i->*J>OJOinc5tooTr<o»Ti<infN 
0'notoo3'^ot:^toc5a3co-<*i-*--oj'<i<t^coin-<3<oo<0'^t~ 



•-H 00 -H 

in 00 00 



csOJcoi^Qot^— <focofo--t--aoi:^ooos — roTjffoin — fotoc*QOC*-^i-iooQO) 
coc^ooQO — ot^QO^ntoo'-c(^>fOlna5toc300toeo-H-x) oc»Oi ^sioic 

c* CO rH cooooi'^co toinocoo inin o» in oc*to ccc< 

•^ i-i(?j-^ 00 i-t r-i c* co" l> i-T 



dj 



« 



boo 

O 4> 



osO'r«oi^-^e5--T*<incoc500to 
inoocot^inininco<^otoo>n 
tornini— '■— "'—•^tooioiooo*'— ic* 



t^ to o o r^ (M 00 OS rft o in to in Tf 

00 fM O O) Ol ■<3< 1— I CO oo toinooo ■— ' 

CO — in o in to CM CO to cotoi— oi o 



o oj in >2 
oco in o 
ooio»« 



■^cotOTj<QOfocointooc>jtofOi-i 
ot}<(m coocoojct>j> to in 

GO CO t-O<C0 CI 



oi ■»*< |iy»ootoin tott 
oi ■* aoi> o ooi 

i^ O 'H I— I 



£3 

aj ^ i> 

S ^ a 



»C»'*tOi^inoiTtic»i>int^ooinT}<oiini-<'^inini^c»— <(M totoin— coinoi<N»> 

< eo in CO in rM to CO -^ t^ -^ o<ab cm to oo ij? in (M c< oo i-i cm ■«*< 

F^ in c< CO 1 1-1 rH ot 






I~coo'^)■* — Qoc^os'Mco — t-CQoit^otooaincoto-Hoo 

QO-^OOOCOOOO»n — ■^tO'd«C»CO-Hrjit-tOC— TfCOOtOt^Oa 

incoocNtocotocotooootocoooi^(Noo-<j«coQOQOOoot^r^ 



I otoco "* 

I to -< Tjl T}< 

1 o» oi to •-< 



^5 



•^05r-co0'*t^i>too«oo — in>noo3ino< 
eoo(cooin'^to«^ooooin-<*'--(?»oootoco( 
■»i< cor-i ooto c< intoocooi 



) to ff} ■* 1— 00 to 

) ■<*l l^ CO 00 r-* 



1 to in I— I to < 
lOin eo( 



> in 03 o 









o 



.^ .5 'w 0) 






C3 ' 






m 3 J) <u c C 

S £ ^ fe a< eo 



ffia 



>= ^ a 
*-. w ^5 

tJ tj o 



o oS.Si 



ffi:^ 



'^^ 



a^ 



° a ^ 






;;; t« .2 C 



si 



O « -C.«J 

f- D D _. 



O O .ti 






S5 '*^ C 03 ^ 



w^;^; 

j=j= rt 



i^o 



««1 

S T^ 

e« C8 W 
•^ 4) t, P< 

CO t3 ^ ;3 

o o*2^ 



<U H -J 

PQMcO 



<u.'£.'^.'£ .'£.'^ 



a^ c C c c 






S_ac3(3ja>a)edc«ws-2 

-^ — t. i, u. ^ Pj Q-^"^ i^ 3 



c n ^Li- 



g20PQPQMCQoq<;o&HCnfct*[»CQr'^0 



^ 



31 



vn i> kft 00 

O 0» rM 0< 

•— rN (M o 



»f5t~QD(?Jvn(Ma5:ovft— <r)>ai — •— ooini^oa-^— 'WOO 



ftj t~- CTi in c^ "' oi • 
■T^ 00 CO -< CO X CTi 
t^ o o 1-1 vn 



( r- C5 O l^ 00 J^ C-J O OJ f^) vO — ' 'J3 '?J I 00 

i^CMOst^— <'r»a5cn>acmGi<N0D-s< t- 

TP O M M I— 1— 1 ai CM "Xi kfS ■-" 01 <£> 

1-1 CO 1-1 ift 1-1 CO 



vft 'i* CO 

in o ■-< 



r- ■»*< 00 05 CO •■> oi 

05 O 0» to ifl O 5£> 

CO 00 ^ 00 »n -H o 



0» CO 



Chcjca(y»rt<— iinococo 

CjaDCO-^OQC'ODO'-Din 

inococNQooi-^coOin 



vft -H in 01 oi 00 no 
»^ o o in t-c* 00 
00 !£) — < c- G» o 1^ 



"* c-i in CO 



i-Tp-Tcf 



O « CO t^ 



in -^ m "* 1^ 1-^ 



00 CO in ift oi CO r- 

^l" 05 rl< ^- cv; in O 
CO O O -^ I- t^O 



i-Hr*< 

I- in 

ID O 



M<r-c<(OincooooJoo 

CS — CClOOCOQOOl---^ 

OJOi^'^ini^-^co-*'*! 



iC CO CO •-0 to in 
CI — « '3' o o r~ 



i-'-ninocrttc*-^ i«o 1— 'OOO'^OifMrooccQc- 

on ,-< (MOO totn COOt^OOlJ^OCO^OO 

1-1 !-!(?» 1-^coci-H c* in — I •* 



(MO o-*ecso 

1-1 TT* 



— CD -< (S C« » ©» QOt^CM-^CftCOOTfOOOOCOCO t^QD i>o>c<a> 

^H'^rH 1-IIX! -Hl-l t-O'* —i-ll-OCO 1-1 1-1 CO I- 

•^ I r-^O*!-^ 1—1 1-1 I I ^H 



eo t^ •<*" »n to Oi oi i-t(M as o^ "m ■"* oo to oj t^ eo im rj« m iy» eo — •>* t^ »^ ^ 
inF^fN 1-1 i-< ^ rfi CO ^ tot-eo (M '-» ^eocos* 

^^ I I ^. CO 1-^ l-< I M F^ 



Oi— •(^»oocfriC« (KO ininocoosint-Qococo QOrt<in — ooccoo 

■«a< — « en CO CO en to r-tM to o co in — < -^ Oi o^ en -^ — too(N— 'toco 

o J> o -- '-"__co -^ inco (MOtoi-~c<3Ci<jiaiin'-' torr— cotMoiai 

04aiTj<aii>inc* (Xico --"os co"-^ mcocoocor- coooo oo co't-^'tT 

i>into t^— <05 icMoo I05t^ — -^co—icoinojo i(Moo(>Jin-^inao i I 

C CO "^ -^ ClCOODi-i ■>* — (M CO -^i-H^TjiTlt 



o 

O P 5^ 

o o3 



O "O 
N C 

t_ to 

O oi 

rot*- 
0) 



rt 



■ ^ 



2 

<3 



Pi " 



•£■2 



u 



>>c 



« >>' 



aj 



CO ^ -S 1) ^ tj o --; ;c .■-- TJ — 

>>£■- o ^-S ^ c S^^ S S ^ ■= ^' S-s^: 

« a! CO y (a "-I 3 '-^ "^ "' "" -■' "' ■•!•'•''•>!- 



rt bo 

OJ 1, "' --^ a 



cj cS 



3 .'- ^== ,5- ii2 .<" ii 'iJ ^ v:^ - -Zi -; j=: <u o -« s '^ "- ti o 



5 == 



S2Er22^2r252?2'*''^'*t^<jcaiO — c?cornintDi>ooaio-^(McO'*iny> 
ffOWCOro'^T»<Ti<'*^^T}<ic<'<i<^»n»nin»niriovninknintotototototo!0 



32 



No. 6. 



IFYom the Treaniry Report of 1840.] 
-EXPORTS OF OUR DOMESTIC PRO- 
DUCTS TO TEXAS IN 1839. 
1. Products of tiK fisheries. 
Dried or smoked and pickled fish - - $3, 137 

Spermaceti oil and candles, whale and other 

fish oil - - - • - - 7' 057 

Non-enumerated - - " 33, 232 



Total exports products of the fisheries - 43, 426 



2. Products of the forest. 
Staves, heading, shingles, boards, plank, and 

scantling _ _ - - 

Other lumber . _ - - 

Oak bark, and other dye - - - 
AH manufactures of wood 
Tar, pitch, rosin and turpentine 

Ashes — pot and pearl - - - 

Skins and furs _ _ - - 

Non-enumerated - - - - 



48, 504 

22, 267 

599 

51,112 

1,471 

64 

225 

33, 232 



Total exports products of the forest - 157. 474 



3. Products of (^culture. 
Beef - - . - 

Pork, ham, bacon and lard 

Butter and cheese - - - - 

Horses . - - - - 
Flour - - - 
Indian corn - - 

Indieui meal _ . - - 
Rye, oats, and other small grain, and pulse 

Biscuit, or ship bread _ - - 

Potatoes - - - - - 
Apples 

Rice . _ - - - 

Tobacco . - - - - 

Brown sugar - _ - - 

Molasses - - - - - 

Non-enumerated - - - - 



3,587 

62, 132 

13, 028 

700 

55, 091 

15,981 

1,151 

6, 902 

12, 701 

5,145 

1,040 

5,743 

1,509 

27, 900 

3,250 

33, 234 



Total exports products of agriculture - 239, 092 
4. Exports of domestic manufactures 



Household furniture 
Coaches and other carriages 



58,571 
11,410 



Hats 19,055 

Saddlery 14,063 

Beer, porter, cider and spirits, from grain - 50, 508 

Leather boots and shoes - - - 64, 308 

Tallow candles and soap - - - 6, 676 

Snuff and manufactured tobacco - - 17, 895 

Linseed oil and spirits of turpentine - 1, 530 

Cables and cordage - - - 4, 262 
Lead - - - - -1,104 

Bar iron and nails - - - - 14, 441 

Castings - - - - - 11,540 

All manvifactures of iron, or of iron and steel 89, 261 

Spirits from molasses - - - 9, 848 

Refined sugar - - - - 8, 844 

Chocolate] ----- 13 

Gunpowder - - - - 4, 659 

Copper, brass, and copper manufactured - 395 

Medical drugs - - - - 7, 990 

Printed and colored piece goods of cotton 95, 856 

White piece goods of cotton - - 138, 603 

Yarn and other threads - - - 28 

All other manufactures of cotton - - 11, 16G 

Bags, and other manufactures of flax - 20 

Wearing apparel - - i. - 118, 303 

Combs and buttons - - - 1, 470 

Brushes - - - - - 1,025 

Billiard tables and apparatus - - 413 

Umbrellas and parasols - - - 485 

Printing presses ajid type - - - 1, 756 

Musical instruments - - - 959 

Books and maps - - - _ 3, 061 

Paper and other stationery - - 25, 032 

Paints and varnish - - - 8, 663 

Vinegar - - - - - 1, 051 

Earthern and stone ware - - - 6, 541 

Glass 6,875 

Tin - - . - - - 4, 775 

Pewter and lead - - - - 407 

Marble and stone - - - - 966 

Gold, silver, and gold leaf - - - 150 

Artificial flowers and jeweb'y - - 1, 577 

Bricks and lime - - » - 2, 796 

Domestic salt - - - - 664 

Manufactured articles not enumerated - 100, 056 

Total exports of domestic manufactures 929, 071 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0DDli42Dfi0a2^ 



















H 




1 





